Did Perry use the “s” word?
The matter of whether Rick Perry has advocated secession arose on Fox News last night. He insisted that he has never used the s-word, except to refer to signs at tea party rallies that say “SECEDE.” As far as I know, he is right.
Here is what Perry did say back on April 15, 2009, during a raucous aftermath of an Austin tea party rally, when a reporter shouted out:
“Some have associated you with the idea of secession or sovereignty for your state.…”
Perry replied, “Texas is a unique place. When we came in the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.”
Not true, and it’s rather amazing that Perry made such an egregious historical error. He didn’t use the s-word, but what he did say was incorrect. Texas did not enter the union with the right “to be able to leave if we decided to do that.” It’s pretty much American History 101 that states don’t have the right to leave the Union. Hundreds of thousand of Americans gave their lives to preserve that principle.
And, while he didn’t use the s-word, there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between saying that Texas could leave the Union if it wanted to, or that it had the right to secede.
Perry probably confused the fact that the treaty of annexation allowed Texas to divide into five states, with the idea that Texas could opt out of the Union.
I don’t want to be picky, but … shouldn’t a candidate for the job Abe Lincoln once held know that states don’t have the right to secede? Or, if you prefer, “leave if it decides to do that.”
Tagged: American History 101, rick perry, s-word, secede, secession
Peggy Venable says:
AFP organized that event alongside the Austin tea party New Revolution Now. Paul is absolutely right. Gov Perry ‘comments were to a reporter in an interview following the event program.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Rick Perry definitely put Texas secession on the table at that rally – his comments can clearly be interpreted as that.
Yet another insincere example of Perry Planned Pandering.
I was at Rick Perry’s first tea party (only after Obama becomes president).
It was noon in Austin , TX . It was a warm day in April, 2009, and most folks at the Tea Party rally were wearing short sleeve shirts and shorts (I also had a baseball cap). The downtown lunchtime crowd was in suits or business attire. Rick Perry showed up – about 4 minutes away from his governor’s office – looking like he was going quail hunting and sporting a hunting cap. Then Slick Rick starts ranting “Fed up!” “States’ rights!” I don’t think Bilderberger Perry believed a word of what he was saying but the crowd cheered anyhow. Rick Perry was not Tea Party before Tea Party was cool. Perry only became Tea Party AFTER Obama became president. So Perry only has a problem with “big government” when it’s a Democrat running it. Like those Wash DC Republicans, Perry likes to spend and borrow a lot of money.
That in a nutshell demonstrates what counterfeit money the man is. I have lived in Texas the whole time Perry was governor; until recently I had never heard him talk about Tea Party concerns. Perry did not care about “states’ rights” or “anti-tax” or the 10th Amendment when Republicans were spending like drunken sailors or torching the Constitution with the Patriot Act. Rick Perry supported No Child Left Behind when it first came out and he issues a press release “Perry’s Educational Plan Gains Federal Approval.” Perry had no problem with the federal government attempting to take over your elementary school.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Guess a man with an animal science degree from (at the time) a rural cow college and a barely passing GPA that was a cheerleader might not be expected to know the constitution. But he might have picked some knowledge up fro ol’ Rush, Fox news or Hannity.
Reply »
Buck says:
The next day, Perry defended his comment.
“People discuss and debate,” he said ” … Can we secede?”
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I don’t think he’s going to resurrect, but I do know that if the first Republican President you referenced above ever resurfaced in Texas, Rick Perry would be the first to tell you “we’d treat him pretty ugly.”
Reply »
Scott says:
I would be more interested to ask if Perry understands what the word “indivisible” means and whether he crosses his fingers when he says the Pledge of Allegiance.
Reply »
Matt H says:
“It’s American History 101 that states don’t have the right to leave the Union.”
To make this blatant misstatement in a post criticizing Perry for his misstatement is irresponsible. Perry is wrong that Texas made a special deal that allowed it to secede. But most of the founders (there are exceptions) would tell you that the Union was created with the idea that states could leave it, and there are a number of arguments stemming from the wording of the Constitution and the documents by which various states came into the Union that support the idea that states can, indeed, secede. That Lincoln took the opposite position and was willing to back it up by killing thousands of his countrymen does not mean that states were not permitted to secede. And it’s certainly not “American History 101″ that they are not permitted to secede, unless we’re talking about the kind of dumbed down American history that Perry’s board of education would require.
Reply »
Alan Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 10:10 am
The question of whether states can secede unilaterally or not is not clearly answered in the Constitution. It was very clearly answered by a little thing called the Civil War.
Reply »
The House is Not a Home Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 10:15 am
Constitution > Civil War
Reply »
texun Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 4:35 pm
I’d like documentation of “most of the founders….” I went a long way beyond History 101 and never saw good evidence of that allegation.
Reply »
Buck says:
Not to make this a legal-secession debate, but the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White that states can’t legally secede.
That was based in part on the intent to “form a more perfect union.”
Reply »
The House is Not a Home says:
Speaking of the Civil War, Linda Greenhouse at the New York Times believes that the Civil War decided that States do not have standing to sue the Federal Government in matters pertaining to health care.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/breaking-news-the-civil-war-is-over/?ref=opinion
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Probably right.
Reply »
Phillip Martin says:
The Texas Tribune had reported a more damning quote Perry gave just before the “famous” one about secession at the April 15 tea party. This one came in front of a group of bloggers:
“When we came into the nation in 1845, we were a republic, we were a stand-alone nation,” the governor can be heard saying. “And one of the deals was, we can leave anytime we want. So we’re kind of thinking about that again.”
Source: http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-presidential-election/more-perry-remarks-about-secession-come-light/
Reply »
The House is Not a Home Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 10:25 am
Oh Phillip, you try so hard, but Obama is going to lose the election next year.
Reply »
Emeyekaye Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 10:41 am
If this loon Perry becomes President, there will be a whole lot more people thinking about secession…. They’ll probably be thinking about a few words that rhyme with it too.
Because of that, Obama will win.
Reply »
Buck says:
Let’s be honest here.
There were serious conversations on the right during the banking crunch about whether Texas could legally secede and try going our own way if the U.S. dollar collapsed.
As I recall, there’s also a Tom DeLay Fox News video clip where he talked about it.
It might sound crazy, but it also wasn’t out of nowhere.
Reply »
texun Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 12:16 pm
During those serious conversations, did anybody arrive at a way of determining the amount of the federal debt that Texas would take with it? We damned near drowned in debt as a Republic and I suspect it would be even worse now. Of course, all of it is idle speculation.
Reply »
anon-p Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Buck> There were serious conversations on the right during the banking crunch about whether Texas could legally secede and try going our own way if the U.S. dollar collapsed.
That is false. There was no such thing.
There was political posturing, but nothing serious.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Who cares if Perry used the “S” word? It’s stupid to even parse the words of someone who is completely lacking in the sober judgment required of a president. Unfortunately, by electing the likes of Perry more than once, Texans have themselves shown they don’t have good judgment. One can only hope that America as a whole is more thoughtful and well-informed.
Reply »
Governor Toolshed Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 11:12 am
Ken Mercer, David Dewhurst, Debbie Riddle, Dan Patrick, Wayne Christian, Dennis Bonnen, Chuy Hinojosa, Dwayne Bohac, Leo Berman.
Just in case America needs any more proof of how thoughtful and informed Texas voters are…
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Don’t leave out Louie Gohmer(t)
Reply »
Return of the NeoCons Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Gohmert is a balder Jay Kimbrough… By the way, what the heck happened to him yesterday?
Sharp fired him, so he pulled a knife?
… and he served as the Governor’s “go to” guy for TYC, TXDOT, and A&M?
Where is his judgment, and what about Perry’s judgment in appointing him?
Emeyekaye Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Don’t forget that the nimrod known as Jay Kimbrough also was in charge of Texas Homeland Security. That gives me chills.
It’s amazing how he can continue to be rewarded for getting wounded in Vietnam. I guess that’s just Perry licking Marine boots, hoping they won’t ask about his years of service.
Anonymous Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 5:07 pm
For the love of God, how can you leave out Trey Martinez-Fischer, Jessica Farrar or Barbara Mallory Caraway(she might just try to stab you for not mentioning her).
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
no need to get your panties in a wad liberals. Texas will not secede. After the election, we will still be here to pull the wagon, you just can’t ride for free anymore.
Reply »
Governor Toolshed Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 11:35 am
When in doubt, play the “liberal” card! What a Nazi move!
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Liberals now perfer being called “progressives”. You should know that.
watch an Obama Progressive
Reply »
Governor Toolshed Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Watch Fort Bend fascists here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuZAwjWwbPA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
They actually start playing “Dixie” when Michael Williams appears!!! Tragic, and yet a fine illustration of how tone deaf these folks really are… or are they really sending a message here?
Anonymous Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Go away.
Reply »
texun says:
For strict constructionists: the U. S. Constitution makes no provision for a state leaving the Union. There is an orderly process for moving from possession to territory to state, but that’s it.
In the British sense that history makes law, the Civil War settled the issue definitively with a negative.
I see this as another of Perry’s attention-getting destabilizing talking points, much like the current one, supporting total Israeli control of Jerusalem, our embassy following from Tel Aviv. Though there are Jews in Israel and elsewhere who hold that position, there are many sane peace-seeking Jews in Israel who are undercut by comments like Perry’s. He encourages intransigence, not mediation and peace.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Texun and Phillip,
What you don’t understand is that the Civil War didnt end State Rights. There was a lot of bloodshed, but there was no amendment to the Constitution that clarified State Rights. Therefore, we should at least have the discussion about Texas or any state leaving the Union if it finds necessary. I think Rick Perry will allow individual states to make an informed decision at the appropriate time(after a long, full discussion on this issue)
Reply »
texun Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 12:29 pm
There was no amendment to the Constitution that clarified State Rights because any such right–secession–was obliterated by the defeat of the Confederacy.
Nullification lost out during Andy Jackson’s administration, secession during Lincoln’s, and interposition during Eisenhower’s.
As a result, there are no “states rights” in your sense of the term. A state may challenge the constitutionality of a federal law from district to circuit to supreme court. The challenge ends there, one way or the other.
The Federal government is not optional. As is clear from the Northwest Ordinance onward, the states are creatures of the Federal government. After the original 13, it admitted them according to its laws.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 5:11 pm
So, your argument is that the states are now slaves to the federal government. Quite the full circle for post-civil war constitutionalist theory.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 10:38 am
No state or any other government has any rights. States have powers.
Reply »
Return of the NeoCons says:
Perry will do anything the NeoCons tell him. If this country wants war with Iran and Syria, then they will vote for Perry.
Reply »
anon-p says:
Mr. Burka,
You were doing well with the first paragraph and should have left it at that.
I think the context is important here, and you don’t seem to treat it at all in your later comments.
A state doesn’t have the right to secede, true. But then, the federal government doesn’t have the right to break the law.
And when the federal government illegally and repetitively overreaches, the talk of secession arises. That’s where the context is.
Your implication is the governor giving aid and comfort to a state’s right to arbitrarily secede for any cause whatsoever. And I just don’t see that in any of his statements.
Reply »
anita Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Read Perry’s words — that’s exactly what he says, and he believes Texas has this right.
“And when the federal government illegally and repetitively overreaches” . . . we have courts, open to all, to hear these disputes. Our country has established a court system that is the envy of the world — yet you think it’s appropriate to simply advocate secession? Seriously?
Reply »
texun Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 12:45 pm
If the federal government breaks the law, legal remedy is available through the federal court system. Our proper response to court decisions we find unacceptable is to vote for presidents who will nominate jusstices more to our liking and for senators who are likely to approve them. If you look at the Supreme Court now, do you have a problem with it?
Another obvious way to remove unpopular laws is to remove the people from office who pass and approve them. Recent opinion polls show that about 80% of the voting public thinks that should occur now–and they are including their own congressmen and congresswomen in the lot, not always a situation in the past.
No system is perfect, but I think that one based on proportionate representation, an elected head of state, and judicial review is about as good as it gets.
Reply »
anon-p Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 6:22 pm
texun> No system is perfect, but I think that one based on proportionate representation, an elected head of state, and judicial review is about as good as it gets.
That is a matter of political opinion. And that’s the entire point.
The governor warned of the consequences of the growing unrest and impatience with the current method of restraining and reforming the federal government in its perceived overreach.
It’s a warning, not a prescription, or even a recommended prescription.
Y’all should know by now that the governor echoes powerful sentiments and uses them cleverly, but he rarely initiates them.
Reply »
anita says:
The very concept of a ‘union’ is based upon the singular, a oneness. It would be antithetical to the very concept of the United States to have an option for states to walk away. An argument (or the belief) that Texas reserved the right to walk away from the US also undercuts his position of a strong 10th Amendment — why give states wide berth and authority if they have the option to simply walk away as a remedy?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 5:15 pm
If “union” is the sole concern, why have states then?
Reply »
Jed Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 3:04 pm
check out federalist #40.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
It is a good thing that New Hampshire insider Dave Carney is running Perry’s campaign. Because otherwise, without all Carney’s lay of the NH lay of the land experience, Perry might be in 7th place behind Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann in the “Live Free or Die” state.
Currently Perry is in 4th place in New Hampshire at 8%, about 1/2 of Ron Paul’s 14%. And far, far behind Romney at a whopping 41%.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/09/new-hampshire-poll-romney-huntsman-ron-paul-rick-perry.html
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Anita,
We came into the USA with the option of pulling out at any given time, especially if the federal government starting acting in illegal ways. That is a historical fact.
Reply »
anita Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Where is that option memorialized? Send us the link, please.
Reply »
texun Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 1:24 pm
That is unhistorical fiction!
Reply »
Palmer Glacier Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 1:12 pm
What is NOT unhistorical or fiction is the July 4, 1776 Declaration of the founders which laid the precepts of the Constitution:
“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying
its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
The People have the right, perhaps even the obligation, to alter the government in protection of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
I wish all these “yes,we do have the rightto run away and take our ball home if we don’t like the way things are going” seccessionists would READ the Constitution and NOT THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. “More perfect union”…Washington saying he wanted an “indivisible union” and all that are what we live under. The Constitution replaced the Articles so forget them….
Reply »
Anonymous says:
You don’t understand what we are saying – we came in with an opt out to leave if we want and we need to have a national discussion on whether or not we should leave. It doesn’t mean we are going to leave the US, but if the federal government keeps doing what it is doing, we might go.
Reply »
anita Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 1:00 pm
So it’s not memorialized anywhere . . . this is just a handshake deal that’s been passed down orally since 1845, and you were trusted one to communicate it to all of us, correct?
Fascinating.
Reply »
Jed Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 10:42 pm
as long as you take perry with you, i’m not sure why everyone is in such a twist about this.
could be a win win.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
We have not intent need to leave, all we have to do is kick the bums out and take our country back. That started in 2010, more to happen in 2012. The progressives/Marxists won’t go away, they have nothing better to do. But we’ll be in charge, and we will undo a lot of damage they’ve inflicted on America.
Guv Perry has an agenda and that scares Progressives/Marxists.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Guv Perry has an agenda and that scares
Progressives/Marxistssentient beings.No wonder you are on board.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Progressives like Presidents Wilson, FDR, Clinton and Obama have an agenda. Republicans usually don’t, they just spend their time undoing the wrongs progressives have inflicted during their terms. However, Guv Perry does and really does scare progressove/Marxists.
As I said progressives won’t go away, they have nother better to do. So they’ll go to meetings, community organize, agitate, commit election fraud, etc. Things they know how to do.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Rick Perry is a progressive.
Reply »
texun says:
There was no option for pulling out at any given time. Period. Produce the document that says otherwise.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
But we are thinking about leaving, especially if the federal government continues to act illegally like it has since the 1930′s. One of the things we are going to do with President Perry is to have a national discussion on issues and if they can’t be changed, the option of leaving will be on the table. You liberals need to understand that.
Reply »
Dave Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 1:14 pm
If Perry becomes president in a GOP wave, I hope Washington DC leaves, taking Perry and all the idiots in Congress. The rest of the country would appreciate it.
Reply »
Vernon Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 4:14 pm
First, who’s “we”? Or were you speaking for all of us? If you were, please stop. You secessionists are in the vast minority. Speak for yourself.
Secondly, your option of “leaving” is on the table right now, at this very moment. If you simply can’t stand the federal government, no one is stopping you from leaving.
Reply »
texun says:
Try a bit of reading: 1. Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States, Approved Marchy 1, 1845 by the US Congress. 2. Ordinance of Annexation Approved by the Texas Convention on July 4, 1845.
There are conditions to be met in both documents, but the option of Texas subsequently withdrawing from the Union does not appear.
Texas did enter the “back door” because Whigs blocked statehood, so it was accomplished through the Joint Resolution of Congress (requiring fewer affirmative votes) and by convention called to act on it, presided over by Thomas J. Rusk. 61 signatures followed, more than enough under the laws of the Republic and of the Convention.
I toss in this material because I misspoke and mentioned a “treaty.” There was no treaty, the Joint Resolution and the Ordinance accomplishing the same work, action upheld early in the 20th Century by the United States Supreme Court.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Texun,
There is an option for Texas to leave the Union. Not sucede, but leave if it wants to. I don’t think we should be using the word secede anymore because all the liberals then talk about the civil war and how we wanted to keep the slaves, etc. But if we want to leave, Texas has that right. It was drawn up that way when we came into the USA.
Reply »
Harry Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 1:41 pm
No. Unless you can show where in the resolution admitting Texas to the Union that we were given the specific right to leave, then this is not the case.
Reply »
Harry says:
“Perry replied, “Texas is a unique place. When we came in the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.” ”
Paul…is this ALL Perry said on the issue? If so, he did NOT say Texas had the right to leave, only that succession was an issue during the debate on the Treaty of 1845.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Harry,
Perry has said is was one of the deals allowing for us to go forward with coming into the USA. Here is the deal, liberals have done a great job not allowing all of the paperwork involved with us coming into the Union. Alot of that paperwork has been hidden over the years and has never come forward. But us being able to leave when we wanted to was one of the deals made when Texas entered into USA.
Reply »
Dave Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Comedy gold
Reply »
anita Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Amazing. Absolutely amazing.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
wow, what an interesting theory. so did modern liberals travel back in time and destroy the paper trail, like the end of your sentence or did 1845 liberals, like oh, I don’t know, Stephen F. Austin or Sam Houston do it??? Inquiring minds want to know.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
When can leave the USA when we want to…go home liberal.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 2:53 pm
I am home, in the good old USA. Apparently you are the one who doesn’t feel at home here. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
for you pedantic posters. Texas won’t have to secede when Perry becomes president. All of the US will become Texas…..think about that.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 2:58 pm
hmmm, pedant, pedantic, pedophile. Those seem to be your favorite words. Perhaps you should ask mommy for another page of the dictionary.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 3:48 pm
you forgot progressive
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I don’t know what you mean by child molestors, but I am not that. Bottom line, the deal was made when we came into United States to leave if we wanted…that is a fact.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 3:49 pm
even child molestors are welcome in the democrat party.
Reply »
Robert says:
Burka, the Civil War was fought to decide whether states could leave the union. It was not so decided at the time Texas joined as you state with certainty.
Reply »
texun Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 5:02 pm
It simply wasn’t an issue when Texas entered the Union. The Republic was vulnerable, poor, from Day One eager to enter the Union. Read Jim Haley’s recent prize-winning biography of Sam Houston, for starters. If you want a primary source, look up Houston’s first inaugural address for his view of the Republic’s prospects. Paul’s on solid ground.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Larry Flynt offering $1 million for information gay or straight sexual encounters with Rick Perry!!
http://www.tmz.com/person/rick-perry/
He will get some leads off of that for sure.
It is just a matter of time before Sarah Palin replaces Rick Perry in the POTUS race.
The bottom line is folks are having a very hard time getting primary sources who have been with Rick Perry to go public. The secondary sources voluminous and very credible, but no one wants to dive in the cold water first.
Hop on in, folks, it ain’t that cold!
Reply »
southtexasdemocrat says:
Lets see, Texas dividing into five states and this is a bad thing? Thats 10 Senators for our State. How much extra money would that be for South Texas for example? This is a great idea that the Democratic Party should probably jump on if it had any brains. If Rhode Island has two U.S Senators than damn right, my city of Penitas should have two as well. What do you think Paul? Should Democrats be in favor of getting 8 more Senators for our State?
Reply »
The House is Not a Home Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 3:15 pm
I love when South Texas claims they don’t have representation. You have two outstanding Senators in Cornyn and Hutchison.
Reply »
southtexasdemocrat says:
I never said they don’t provide representation.. We are just left out when it comes to infrastructure monies and federal dollars for xyz compared to other parts of the State. If the Republic of the Rio Grande had its own U.S Senators we probably would have a loop that wasn’t a toll road and a Wall built with Federal dollars rather from the pockets of the poorest people in the Country. I think the Guv is on to something!
Reply »
southtexasdemocrat says:
Paul?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
So we can really split into 4 states? Seriously? Then why don’t we do it! Its not going to hurt anything.
Reply »
The House is Not a Home Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Austin would be split four ways though.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Yep. Guaranteed. Austin split into 4 different states.
Reply »
Ike's lawyer says:
Nate Silver’s 4/24/2009 fivethirthyeight.com blog entry on how things might look if Texas divided into five states. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/messing-with-texas.html
Reply »
texun says:
More fantasy. The Resolution and the Ordinance make reference to possible division of Texas into more states, but doing so would finally require an act of Congress, the only body empowered by the US Constitution to admit new states. Guess how likely that is! Dems wouldn’t want it, nor would Republican states with scant population.
And, when you come right down to it, does the world really need more than one Texas?
The grand sorting out of State properties, debt, names, and the like, along with attached political ambitions could fuel hundreds of crummy novels. And some humor. Perhaps the Dallas area could be named “No Texas,” South Texas “So Texas” etc. Imagine the statemanship of Dan Patrick on the method of dividing up the turf!
Reply »
Anonymous says:
When has secession or the idea of ever been about following the law or about the act being legal? So many people on here have said Texas can’t legally do it or doesn’t have the right. Neither did the Confederacy, but they still did it. If a state wants to seceede, it’s going to do it whether the federal government approves or not. Then comes the war.
Reply »
Hilarious says:
An egregious historical error – actually echoed in Texas history in classrooms across the state. Do a poll, Paul – Texans believe that there’s an inherent right to secede built in to the annexation treaty that brought us into the union.
The “right” of secession is in the eye of the beholder. If one government wishes to sever itself from the collective or “parent” government, whether they have a right to do so is totally subjective based on which side you’re on. The legality of the action will always be viewed as non-existent by the primary government in question. Whether there’s a constitutional right doesn’t matter, if the seceding government is breaking the contract that binds it to the other states.
Reply »
donuthin says:
Perry is a goober. He was playing to the audience of the moment and was not thinking of the consequence of his words when before another audience. I have no idea whether he mentioned the “S” word or not but his words clearly indicated that he thought it was a potentially viable option. Now he is implying that because he didn’t say secede, he is not accountable for the implied meaning of his remarks. He is an awful lot like the guy he once supported who went on to invent the internet.
Reply »
Sam Jacinto says:
“Bottom line, the deal was made when we came into United States to leave if we wanted…that is a fact.”
A fact? “Real” facts can be proven (as opposed to faux or Fox facts). It’s a myth. Same as the one about Washington and the cherry tree. Repeating it over and over does not make it true. Were we to believe all of our forebears’ legends, there should have been a million soldiers at Gettysburg.
Reply »
anon-p says:
Here’s something from 2009:
> A Perry spokeswoman said Perry believes Texas could secede if it wanted.
Found at: http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/04/17/0417gop.html
It’s meager, but that’s something, I guess.
Reply »
Dave says:
Perry sounds awful in the debate tonight. A few good moments early, but now he just sounds like he’s on drugs.
Reply »
Opioid Optimist Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 10:52 pm
He looks like that because he’s on powerful painkillers to help his back… I guess.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 11:46 pm
A few weeks ago, someone who said she was friends with Rick Perry’s cocaine dealer gave me a call. Seriously. 2 years ago, a stripper told me Perry was “too coked up” to perform in the back seat of a limo. Seriously.
A source in San Antonio told me Perry got with an 18 year old female stripper. She told her girlfriends that Perry sweated profusely. One of the symptoms of cocaine use is profuse sweating.
I don’t know whether Perry’s performance was due to normal simpleton mindedness or because on drugs, or in need of drugs, or bec/ of lack of drugs … but one thing is for sure we don’t need this pumpkinhead in the White House. He couldn’t even deliver his on pre-arranged lines much less think on his feet.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Let me be the first to say that all you people hoping and praying that our Gov be nominated as the next Repub Pres candidate have to be terribly disappointed in Perry’s showing in the tonight’s debate. I’ve have never seen so much stammering and rambling, incomplete sentences and answers that shyed away from the question asked. Romney looks presidential and easily deflected everything Perry threw at him. I can’t look at the debate from a totally objective position, but I don’t think I have misrepresented how most will view it.
Reply »
Ausowl says:
Yep, Perry was horrible tonight. I’ll bet there is great sadness in big dollar donation land (and in the Obama campaign cloisters).
Cool youtube video advert tho’.
Reply »
donuthin says:
I think he was put off because he didn’t get a list of the questions earlier. Not really fair for his handlers. They need some time to prep him.
Reply »
Bill says:
Stick a fork in Rick Perry: he’s done!
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Perry’s performance: horrible. And thank-God. Maybe we won’t need a gay sex scandal to put this crippled dog out of his misery. Maybe he will just go play in highway traffic on his own.
Molly Ivins is obviously manipulating things from above. No question about it. The folks at A&M could not dream of having Perry this high up the ladder; now we know why. Bumbler. Stumbler. Can’t think on his feet. David Weeks says the camera just loves Perry… well not if he actually has to talk and chew bubble gum at the same time.
Oops. Just got an email from Perry’s campaign telling me about Perry’s “debate victory.” Well, I guess that confirms they are sniffing paint cans over at the Perry campaign again.
The great thing about this presidential campaign is the media really is out to get Perry. Ditto the GOP establishment. Ditto the liberals. Glen Maxey is out to get him. The homosexuals are out to get Perry. The libertarians are out to get Perry. Karl Rove & the Bushes are out to get Perry. Larry Flynt out to get Perry. The John Birch Society … The anti-illegal immigration folks. Ron Paul campaign, Michelle Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman – all out to stop Perry.
Who else? … before it’s all over I bet Anita Perry will be out to sabotage Slick Rick.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Nate Silver 2 days ago before the Florida debate debacle. The more folks learn about Perry, the more folks dislike him. Karl Rove is crowing “I told you so.” I’m crowing “I told you so.”
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/views-of-perry-turn-more-negative-since-first-debate/
“Still, that Mr. Perry’s numbers have gotten worse as he has become better known — and as Mr. Obama’s approval ratings have been low and steady at best — is a poor sign for his campaign.
Moreover, these name-recognition effects usually manifest themselves in lower support for the challenger rather than higher support for the incumbent (voters may say they are undecided if they are not yet sufficiently familiar with a candidate, even if they are likely to support him eventually). But in four of the seven head-to-head polls released since the first debate, Mr. Obama has gotten 50 percent of the vote or more in the hypothetical match-up against Mr. Perry, meaning that the effects cannot be accounted for by undecided voters alone.
It seems possible that if Mr. Perry is the nominee and if economic performance continues to be sluggish, we could wind up with an incumbent president whose disapproval rating is at or above 50 percent matched up against a Republican opponent whose unfavorable rating is also in the 50s. There’s not a lot of historical guidance on what might happen between this proverbial rock and hard place.”
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
Arnie Duncan and Lisa Jackson are avoiding windows today. The republican agendas go most traction last night. Doing away with the IRS, EPA and Dept of Edu is a great start.
Cut….Cut….Cut….its a progressive’s night mare.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 9:26 am
That agenda already is in full force in Somalia. I’m sure people here will pay for your one-way ticket to the “promised land”. see ya!
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 12:49 pm
JBB – only Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are serious about doing away with EPA, Dept of Education.
The rest of the Republicans are statists and liars who want to RUN big government.
Newt Gingrich voted to CREATE the Dept of Education boondoggle in 1979.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
My neighbor’s two dogs vreated more shovel ready jobs than President Obama.
Now thats funny….
Reply »
Mr. Smith Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 7:00 am
and you would know since you’re home all day long watching them. Creeeeeeepy.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 8:15 am
you’re stalking is creepy….get a life
Reply »
Dave says:
Republicans booing an active duty soldier in Iraq – now that’s disgusting.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 8:16 am
what’s disgusting is your comment
Reply »
Dave Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 8:28 am
Brilliant comeback. Can’t find any way to justify Republicans booing an active duty soldier, so you attack me for being offended.
Not a single candidate even thanked the soldier for his service. I will. Thank you soldier for serving your country. You make us proud.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 8:50 am
they didn’t boo the soldier they booed his question. Not everyone supports the PC’s gay agenda.
Anonymous Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 9:55 am
don’t let reality intrude on your fantasy world. repiglicans are small minded and hateful. the booing proves that.
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 10:38 am
and they call others racists and nazis when they’ve run out of brilliant comebacks…
JohnBernardBooks says:
I enjoyed the republicans going the whole two hours without anyone calling someone a racist, a nazi, etc. Why can’t democrats do that?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 8:48 am
Yes, the repiglicans favorite words are traitor, communist, socialist and of course pedophile.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 8:52 am
how many time did you hear those words last night?
We did here President Obama name though. You don’t remember when they said “he’s The One Term and Done” President?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 9:24 am
So you took a 2 hour vacation from the constant “commie, moooslim, SOOOOOCIALIST” rhetoric and you expect a pat on the head??? Go ask mommy for that you wanker.
anita says:
Perry’s performance likely suffered because he had to spend all last night on the phone with a pouting Jay Kimbrough.
Smart move by Sharp — if anyone questioned whether he was going to take orders from Perry or his brown shirts in his new role, I think they now have their answer.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 9:15 am
“Smart move by Sharp — if anyone questioned whether he was going to take orders from Perry or his brown shirts”
first Nazi comment of the day here.
Reply »
anita Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 9:43 am
If I meant “Nazi” I would have used “Nazi”.
The refererence to “brown shirts” is to a group of unquestioning loyalists who march to the orders of a single leader (this word used lightly).
You can call them sycophants, toadies, yes men, flunkies, fawners, if that makes you feel better.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 9:52 am
I think JBBers works as well.
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 10:42 am
the brown shirts were Nazis
and of course you meant Nazis
spin it anyway you need to sweetie
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks says:
Perry Loses Debate!
Uneven debate performances put Perry’s lead in jeopardy.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
Guv Perry big mistake last night was defending Rick Noriega’s tuition plan for illegals. That will cost him with the grownups.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 10:09 pm
Rick perry Loses the Debate! Uneven debate performances put Perry’s lead in jeopardy!
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
Question for progressives, what does a $16 tax payer funded muffin taste like?
Reply »
Dave Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 9:38 am
“In Washington, the contracted breakfast included fresh fruit, coffee, juice, muffins, tax and gratuity, for an inclusive price of $16 per person,” Hilton Worldwide said in a statement.
Feel free to dismiss Forbes as left wing media.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/09/23/business-financial-administration-us-16-muffins_8696771.html
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 10:43 am
you defending $16 muffins?
Reply »
Dave Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 10:52 am
Not defending whoever taught you how to read.
anon Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 10:06 am
Question for JBB — what do the pop tarts your mother buys for you taste like? Isn’t she tiring of you still living with her, trolling the blogs 24/7 while sprawled on her couch in your underwear?
You do know that the Perry Home Team is no longer paying $25 a pop for favorable blog postings, don’t you?
Reply »
The House is Not a Home says:
Paul, in other news, will there be rioting in the streets of College Station when A&M is forced to stay in the Big 12?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
$22,000 in tuition discounts x 16,000 students taking advantage of the program = $352 million in savings to college students. I would suggest that is something we should be proud of as Texans.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 10:46 am
any idea of how many votes Guv Perry bought last night. He should get 60% or higher of the illegal vote in the primaries. The vote harvesters are erasing Bill Whites name and writing in Perry’s. Priceless!
Reply »
Julie says:
Perry has a big hole to dig himself out of following his claim that critics of tuition discounts for illegal aliens have no heart. Perry will win no votes by criticizing the base. Perry also needs to offer a jobs plan instead of repeating his old lines that Texas is leading the nation in creating jobs. Mitt did better than Perry last night, and Michelle Bachmann made a statement that made no sense at all when she said a man should be able to keep all his money and not pay federal income taxes. That comes on the heels of her statement that the poor should pay taxes. Bachmann is brain dead.
Reply »
texun says:
Let’s face it: Rick Perry should borrow Obama’s teleprompter. The stammering, loss of focus, repetition. A fading star.
I think it is legitimate to ask if the Gov and lege should have cut back severely on college scholarships and hacked away at other appropriations for colleges and universities at the same time that they gave in-state tuition status to the children of illegal aliens. This policy is based on the illegal actions of parents, not on the financial need of their children, a curious turn, too. A nonsensical policy of Perry’s. You don’t have to prove financial need as long as you are the child of illegal aliens to qualify for the in-state rate. Unfair and bone-headed and Perry.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
So what do you want to have happen to these poor kids? Its no fault of their own that they are here. Perry is just trying to give them a leg up. You should applaud him for doing so. I for one am proud of my state for giving immigrants a chance to succeed – not secede!
Reply »
anita Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 12:10 pm
I support the tuition program, but Perry has yet to nail his explanation of it (not that it would matter to R primary voters). He actually gave a much better answer during the Texas R primary debates last spring.
Last night, he said that folks who disagree don’t have a heart, which is an emotional argument — but then he stoped and gave an economic argument for why it’s good policy. He needed to expand on the fairness aspect of it, really drive it home. He failed to convince anyone of the merit of the program last night, which is a shame.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 1:00 pm
“He failed to convince anyone of the merit of the program last night,”
because there isn’t any merit. Its Rick Noriega’s program, Perry is just using it to harvest the illegal vote.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 1:31 pm
There is no “fairness” to it, Anita. Tommy from Tulsa pays $40K+ for semester at U.T.; Juan, from Mexico pays less than $20K. Fair?????
And with regard to an “economic argument”…are you referring to Perry’s comment about sending Juan to U.T. so he becomes a production illegal immigrant, as opposed to his going “on the dole”.
If we sent Juan and his family back to Mexico, he would not be “on the dole”….but wait….you say that illegals are paying their way, Anita, so how come Perry is making references to Juan becoming a burden to law abiding Texas citizens?
All your arguments with regards to illegal immigrants are lame, Anita. Very, very lame.
Reply »
The House is Not a Home Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Whoa whoa whoa, folks from Oklahoma attending U.T.? Now thats a dangerous idea.
Dave Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Build a dang fence!!
anita Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Yes, it is fair. We require much more of the immigrant then we do of the Oklahoman.
It isn’t Noriega’s program anymore — this is Perry’s program now.
texun Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Just one minute please, anita! You know that the lege and Perry made severe cuts in scholarships that are available to needy and deserving students whose parents are here legally. Under these circumstances, should our colleges and universities take big hits to revenues to give breaks to the children of illegal aliens without regard to financial need? As to the economic argument–doesn’t that apply to the students whose parents are here legally? They’re the ones hit by the legislative axe.
Reply »
texun Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Great! Let’s give them that leg up–after we’ve taken care of the needy students whose parents are here legally!
Reply »
Dave says:
Obama’s executive order lets states opt-out of NCLB. Perry said he was against NCLB in the debate last night. Will he take advantage of Obama’s executive order?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20110710-503544.html
Reply »
Whoa Nellie! says:
For all that I despise Rick Perry, I do disagree with the statement: “It’s pretty much American History 101 that states don’t have the right to leave the Union. Hundreds of thousand of Americans gave their lives to preserve that principle.”
The winners decide what is and isn’t allowed — and the Union won the Civil War. But had the CSA won, this discussion would take a different slant. Principle? The principle that a disgruntled state is not allowed to leave the American union is a principle of tyranny. Let’s be honest about that. The South may have seceded in a bad cause, but that does not, to me, make the underlying principle wrong. I don’t think any voluntary union of states can insist on the immortality of the union. What if a future national government truly was oppressive? The present union was born by a revolution, secession from the British Crown. Was that also wrong, by these principles?
I don’t think you can have it both ways without hypocrisy.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Whoa Nellie,
I agree with you completely. We have the right to leave the country when we want to. We came into USA as a republic and we were granted special deals where we could leave at any time that we want to. Liberals who say otherwise are not informed on the issue.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 8:42 pm
The problem with this theory is we did leave the union once already. Sam Houston was completely against it. Since the Civil War, The War Between the States or as some people refer to as The War Against Northern Aggression, the issue is settled. We are part of The United States of America and will continue to be despite what some fringe groups believe.
Reply »
anon says:
This is great stuff — comedy gold!
I like it so much that I’m invoking it personally. I can’t wait to tell my wife about the special deal that only I have, and unknown to her, where I could leave her at any time that I want to.
Reply »
Jed Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 3:06 pm
my wife apparently knew about that deal.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 3:31 pm
what you think only muslims have this deal? All you have to say “I divorce you” 3 times and it’s Adios MoFo.
Reply »
AreYouKiddingMe says:
Perry last night reminded me of the ESPN guy. Bumbling, fumblings, stumbling…he was absolutely awful. Him trying to explain Mitt’s flipflops was painful to watch. I would like to see the transcript of that exchange, an absolute joke. My guess is that he starts his gradual descent in the polls today and never rebounds. Too much baggage, too many flip flops, too many lies (even lying about a dying woman, come on Perry…) As predicted, he has fooled Texans for far too long, but he can’t win nationally…
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Whatever. Governor Rick Perry will be President Rick Perry and when he becomes POTUS then we will see who is laughing then. Liberal idiots.
Reply »
anita says:
Turn out the lights . . .
Kristol Slams Perry’s Debate As “Close To Disqualifying”
In a special editorial published by The Weekly Standard, editor Bill Kristol called Gov. Rick Perry’s performance “close to disqualifying,” and stated that “no front-runner in a presidential field has ever, we imagine, had as weak a showing as Rick Perry.”
He went on to quote an email received from a young conservative during the broadcast. “I’m watching my first GOP debate,” the viewer said. “And WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”
The title of the editorial? “Yikes.”
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Rick Perry reminds me of Ronald Reagan … in stage 4 Alzheimers, except that Perry is like that BEFORE he doesn’t become president.
The Perry campaign is what happens when you make someone do something they really don’t want to… i.e. run for president. Perry did NOT want to run, he was talked into it by the billionaires and millionaires who had invested so much in him. And by his wife Anita (who reminds me of Hillary Clinton), who is just in the relationship for political reasons. Perry was the lone man out NOT wanting to run.
It is a disaster. Perry’s Hindenberg is exploding right now. Now you see why the Bushes and Rove consider Perry inferior. They figure they bailed him out in 2004 when he almost royally “screwed” things up. And he is like an ungrateful brother that you have to keep bailing out of jail time and time again.
Go to http://www.intrade.com Romney 43% chance of winning GOP nomination, Perry 27% chance of winning GOP nomination. Perry’s disastrous, incompetent, … scary debate performance will soon be translated into real polls in a few days. Intrade has digested it immediately.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
How amusing anyone who slams Perry goes up in the liberal polls. Guys you need to face facts. Perry has the illegal vote locked up. He just won the election.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 2:05 pm
he obviously has the idiot vote locked up too.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 3:33 pm
“he obviously has the idiot vote locked up too”
uh uh thats Obama’s
Reply »
AreYouKiddingMe says:
Uhhhhhhhh, last time I checked, illegals can’t vote, unless Perry issues another executive order… But they can get reduced college tuition in Texas.
Reply »
anita says:
I hope JBB is right and Perry gets his act together quickly — our best path to four more years of Obama is with Perry being the R nominee.
Perry for America! Hooray!
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 3:35 pm
You bet your sweet potatoe, Perry ain’t nothing but 4 more yrs of Obama. Vote early and vote often…..its the LBJway.
Reply »
retrocon says:
It truly was stupefying to watch Perry’s rumbling, stumbling, and fumbling during Thursday’s debate. So much for Perry’s celebrated and transcendent campaigning skills.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
The next question is: When is Perry going to pull out of the race.
And, yes, JBB, you were absolutely correct; the headlines were Rick Perry loses GOP debate… brutal aftermath.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 6:55 am
Robert it was written before the debate.
Reply »
cystic acne says:
You know therefore considerably in relation to this subject, produced me in my opinion believe it from numerous various angles. Its like men and women are not fascinated except it is one thing to do with Woman gaga! Your individual stuffs great. All the time handle it up!
Reply »
Bradenton Real Estate says:
http://blog.eastbay.com/all/video-blake-griffin-the-advantage-within/
Reply »
Buy Direct says:
hey there and thanks for your information ? I have definitely picked up something new from right here. I did on the other hand expertise several technical issues the use of this web site, since I skilled to reload the web site a lot of instances prior to I may get it to load properly. I were wondering if your web host is OK? Now not that I am complaining, however sluggish loading instances occasions will sometimes impact your placement in google and can damage your quality rating if advertising and marketing with Adwords. Anyway I’m adding this RSS to my e-mail and could look out for a lot more of your respective intriguing content. Ensure that you update this again very soon..
Reply »
piese auto[filtre]ulei says:
Magnificent items from you, man. I have keep in mind your stuff prior to and you are just extremely fantastic. I actually like what you have bought right here, really like what you are saying and the best way through which you assert it. You’re making it enjoyable and you still take care of to stay it wise. I cant wait to learn far more from you. This is really a terrific web site.
Reply »