Facebook > Email > More Pinterest Print Twitter Play

A Narrow Miss

Over the weekend, Texas Republicans thankfully tamped down an effort to talk about secession.

By Comments

AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez

Over the weekend the State Republican Executive Committee came very close to completely disgracing the state, after seven of the twelve members of the Resolutions Committee voted in favor of putting the following proposal on the primary ballot next year:

If the federal government continues to disregard the Constitution and the sovereignty of the State of Texas, the State of Texas and its people should reassert its prior status as an independent nation.

The idea came from SREC member Tanya Robertson, who argued that it was a “harmless” way to encourage Texans to express their opinions on the subject and that it might help boost turnout among Republicans who would otherwise stay home during the March 1 primary.

The majority of SREC members disagreed. The proposal was defeated, on a voice vote, when it was brought before the 62 members of the full executive committee. The margin of defeat, however, is not known. According to the Austin American-Statesman’s Jonathan Tilove, “it appeared that less than a third of the committee backed putting the language on the ballot.” It couldn’t have been more than a third, since Daniel Miller, president of the Texas Nationalist Movement, told Tilove that twenty members of the SREC had committed to supporting the idea. But no one had time to count, and on a second voice vote, members of the executive committee declined to have a roll call.

In addition to being opposed to the proposal, in other words, a majority of SREC members were embarrassed by it, as well they should have been. Texas is part of the United States. Whether or not that was a settled issue prior to the Civil War, it is now. For the Republican Party of Texas to hold a formal referendum on such a historically and constitutionally ignorant question would have made the state a national laughingstock. It also would have been an inherently divisive and contentious exercise. “We appeal to you to disregard the rants of demagogues and secessionists,” wrote the Texas Federation of Hispanic Republicans’ Artemio Muniz and Art Martinez de Vara in an email to the SREC after the proposal emerged from the resolutions committee; the proposal, they continued, was “an avowal of contemplated treason, which it is the imperative duty of an indignant people sternly to rebuke and forever silence.”

Perhaps most derisible is that none of the SREC members who advocated for the resolution have had the dignity to defend it honestly. They’ve all insisted, with wide-eyed innocence, that they just wanted to ask the question. “The goal of these is to take a thermometer of how Texans feel about an issue,” Robertson said, “and what better issue for Texans to do that with?” Dwayne Stovall, who was among John Cornyn’s challengers in the Republican Senate primary last year and recently suspended his 2016 campaign for a seat in Congress, applauded her efforts in a Facebook post: “Good work, Tanya!” Shortly thereafter, in another Facebook post, he elaborated: “To be clear, I am neither for nor against secession.” The “thermometer” Robertson was looking for already exists. It’s called the First Amendment. And in this case it shows the number of Texans looking for a bone to pick with the establishment easily exceeds the number who actually want to secede.

Related Content

  • roadgeek

    The whole statehood thing has worked out pretty well, I suppose. I’d see no reason for leaving, at least not at this point in time. Secession remains an open question, however, as national borders constantly change. I’d prefer to keep an open mind.

    • Indiana Pearl

      Do you think Texas should annex Mexico? Or Canada? Or Louisiana? Or New Mexico?

      • roadgeek

        No, Texas is fine as a member of the union, just as it is. If Texas chose to go it alone, however, and circumstances permitted such a thing, I see no reason for expanding the borders. My point is that borders and governments can change. We’ve seen dramatic changes just in our lifetime. Rule nothing out, no matter how far-fetched.

        • Indiana Pearl

          The borders of the U.S. have changed only by the ADDITION of territories such as Alaska and Hawaii. None have seceded.

          • Kozmo

            Sure. But the USA is very, very young. I don’t think anyone can say what its borders might look like in a hundred years. Look at how different they are today from a hundred and fifty years ago, two hundred years ago, and the pace of change today is immense. Rome lasted well over a millennium or two, depending on how you count it, and its borders changed frequently, sometimes abruptly — and also stayed the same in some regions for centuries. It’s all a matter of scale.

          • Silver Badger

            Some did TRY, but all know how that worked out.

  • Rules of Blazon

    The defeat of the proposal does nothing to clear the bad name of the Republican Party in Texas. No reasonable person views it as anything other than a cult.

    • Jed

      actually i think it’s too late for the whole state. outsiders aren’t going to take the time to sort us out, they laugh at all of us already. if all we have to hold us back is fear of future embarrassment, we got nuthin’. it didn’t stop us from getting here in the first place.

      • Rules of Blazon

        I travel out of state with some regularity. I always have to explain to people that our biggest problem is low voter participation. We’ll be fine as soon as we get the correct election result.

        • John Johnson

          Next time you travel, please tell out of state’ers that you are a Texas Democrat. That will explain everything to them.

          • donuthin2

            I would rather be a democrat than an A hole.

          • John Johnson

            I could say, “What’s the difference?” or “You have a lock on both”…but I don’t want to go low. I like you.

          • Indiana Pearl

            You already did.

        • 6660splendidday

          I don’t think we will be fine if we get the correct election results. Voters in Texas are more interested in Friday Night Football than they ever have been in elections that affect their entire future. Oh, add a beer to the football.. And, of course, all is OK as long as you LOVE JESUS! All you have to do to explain Texas is present the debacle that is Ken Paxton.. nothing else needs to be said. I would suggest more than half of the present Texas Legislature , in better times, would be incarcerated or in some mental institution

          somewhere . Alas, they are in our Capital decorating Christmas trees.

  • Texas Take

    These teanderthals continue their delusional, seditious nonsense in their fevered march backwards. They are traitors and scary stupid fascists who continually set new lows for embarrassing Texas in the eyes of the world. Cruz, Abbott, Patrick, Gohmert, etc. are all testimonials to the representation you get from a narrow-minded Republican base full of ignorant rage and fear. I sometimes feel like I’m living in an episode of the Twilight Zone. Sensible Texas voters need to put down their selfie sticks, stop photographing the hamburger you are eating for lunch and wake the &^%$ up!

    • donuthin2

      You would think they would sooner rather than later, but no indication they are awakening. Hopefully they will before we go off the edge.

    • Indiana Pearl

      Don’t forget Paxton.

    • dave in texas

      Teanderthals. I like it. It’s almost as good as teahadists.

    • Jim

      You mean that there is a good newspaper in this state?

  • Texas is doing fine and ain’t going nowhere. Republicans saved this state from 100 years of bad leadership by dems. Texans haven’t elected a democrat to a statewide office in over 20 years. If that should ever happen then we can talk about succession.

    • Indiana Pearl

      Tell us where you were born in Texas, Booksie.

      • Kozmo

        Like that matters. Hardly anyone at the Alamo was born in “Texas” and those who were were almost entirely Tejano. Which would drive super-patriot Republicans today insane.

  • dave in texas

    “Just asking the question” is the nearly always the only refuge of people trying to defend an indefensible position. The most salient point raised here, in my opinion, is that the SREC knew good and well how embarrassing this nonsense is and went to some lengths to ensure that there was not an actual number of votes attached to it.

    • Natefromtexas

      LOL. Actually, the numbers were hidden because a third of the SREC was in support and that scared the daylights out of the establishment. Republicans voting to stand against their own platform is certainly a win for Democrats as the Republicans drive more of their base away from the party. Be sure and thank the Texas GOP for that.

      The embarrassment was the arguments of those trying to come up with an excuse for why Texans should not be allowed to vote on this issue. The typical answers were fear and doubt spread through misconceptions. Don’t believe me? Just listen as Henneke tries to use the scare tactic that his 12 year old grandson is going to have to pick up a 12 gauge shotgun to fight the 81st airborne (who hasn’t been in existence for a half century). All this threat of violence (only purported by those opposed to independence, not by those who advocate for it) is constructed simply to elicit fear. It is manipulative, pathetic and the true indication of those trying to defend and indefensible position.

  • jammerjim

    Erica, you keep suggesting that this vote “would have” made Texas a laughingstock. I’m sorry, but that ship has sailed. Several times, in my opinion.

    • Erica Grieder

      Well ok, but surely there’s no need to wallow.

      • jammerjim

        Fair enough! I’m sorry, but I just couldn’t resist that dig. I mean, all states have their crazy aunts/uncles but we always seems to do things bigger.

    • wessexmom

      And it’s Bon Voyage time once again as Ted Cruz emerges as a potential winner in Iowa. As he rises in the polls, the wrath of the national media is also rising up against him. Because EVERYBODY hates Ted Cruz–for reasons that are obvious to EVERYONE except Erica Grieder, Paul Burka, Evan Smith and Dan Patrick and his band of wing nuts.

      http://www.cc.com/video-clips/c6usaz/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-nobody-likes-ted-cruz?xrs=share_copy_email

      • jammerjim

        Paul Burka? Really?

  • dpcesq

    The question of whether a state can secede from the Union was answered at Appomattox. The answer is “no”.
    Even if Texas could secede, it would be incredibly stupid. Texas would have to foot the entire cost of (a) “securing its border” with Mexico, (b) replacing Fort Hood and all the other huge US military bases in the state, (c) all the medical care veterans now get from the VA, (d) replacing all federal money available to help Texas students attend college, (e) replacing federal highway funds (f) replacing the Corps of Engineers went it is pulled out of a foreign country and no longer maintains or builds new reservoirs we need for water, (g) replacing crop insurance that gets farmers thru historic droughts, (h) replacing the FBI since we’ll have to investigate crime and terrorism on our own. NASA would get pulled out of Houston faster than you can say “screw you too.” I could go on, but you get the picture. Only a complete fool would think secession is something to even discuss.

    Only complete idiots [those who aren’t familiar with the Supremacy clause] equate “making a policy decision I disagree with” to “ignoring the sovereignty” of a state. This is embarrassing.

    • Jim

      Was the US allowed to secede from England? No, it was illegal, but I’m sure we agree that it was good to do so.

      • dpcesq

        So are you advocating that Texas start a war to secede? Statistics from 1776-1783 are not totally reliable, but most estimates are that 25,000 people died in the Revolutionary War, and the population of the 13 colonies was about 3 million. Now, the population of the US is 300 million. So, if that is a good guidepost, it would correlate to 2,500,000 deaths if we had a similar death rate now. Are you saying a war on the scale of the Revolutionary War would be “worth it” to secede? 625,000 people died in the Civil War when the US population was about 30 million. What if “only” 625,000 people died?

        • Jim

          No, I am advocating peaceful secession. The revolutionary war was necessary because the king was a war monger. I pray that whoever is president when Texas seceded is not a war monger.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Texas is so entwined with the federal government, like it or not, that it cannot survive as a CIVILIZED society without the support of the feds – defense, education, highways, research, government loans. The list is endless.

            Secession talk is a fool’s errand.

          • Natefromtexas

            The federal government gets is money from the States. Including around $270 Billion a year from Texans. When Texan money is no longer going to the IRS it can easily afford the aforementioned federal “benefits”.

          • dave in texas

            Given the current mindset of elected officials in Texas, things like a social safety net, education, and highways would never be established in the first place.

          • Jed

            “I pray that whoever is president when Texas seceded [sic] is not a war monger.”

            name the last president we had who wasn’t. name the current candidate who isn’t.

            points if you said “o’malley.”

          • Natefromtexas

            Do you honestly believe any US president can convince US troops to fire on Texans who went to the polls and voted in favor of self-determination? That is hilarious. A zogby poll showed that 48% of active duty military believe States have the right to vote to leave the union.

            Might I also suggest there would be significant international consequences as well if Texans merely voted to leave and the US government attacked them.

          • Indiana Pearl

            The impetus for the revolution was “no taxation without representation.”

      • Kozmo

        Might certainly makes right. If the American Revolution had failed, we’d be talking about those traitors Washington and Adams and Jefferson now, same as some do about Jeff Davis and Bobby Lee.

        • dave in texas

          I just recently got back from a trip to Canada, where Benedict Arnold is celebrated as a hero. I also found out that until recently, historically speaking, the Canadians’ main foreign policy worry was that the US was going to invade. It’s all a matter of perspective.

          • WUSRPH

            We invaded Canada during both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 and stood by while a bunch of Fenians tried to invade it a couple of times shortly after the Civil War. We get all hot at the idea that the British burned Washington DC in 1814 but fail to remember that they did it in revenge for our having burned down the City of York (now Toronto) which was then the capitol of Canada, the year before.

    • Natefromtexas

      Please illustrate in law where it is illegal to secede? I have yet to find anyone who could point it out in the US Constitution. If the civil war settled the issue of secession, then why wasn’t the Constitution updated to reflect it? The civil war addressed other issues. The US has no legal means to prohibit self-determination, and is actually bound by international treaty (UN) to allow it.

      In regards to the financial consequences, not only could Texas actually afford all those things if we weren’t sending our money to Washington, D.C., but it wouldn’t be your problem would it? The US apparently can’t afford to secure its borders now, so how would Texas be any worse off?

      It is truly embarrassing that to make your unionist argument you have to resort to calling names like “idiots”.

  • First I am having a difficult time believing that the R’s gave this even a smattering of legitimacy by placing it on a ballot and second then TM reporting it as if it was a legitimate issue.

    I have debated both for and against secession merely as an intellectual exercise – that is the only legitimacy the idea of secession deserves in modern times.

    • dave in texas

      Just because it’s embarrassing and stands zero chance of ever happening is no reason for Texas Monthly not to report the story; in fact, I’d argue that ridiculousness of the proposition makes it imperative to cover the story. The governing body of the party that holds overwhelming majorities throughout state government brought secession up for a vote. The very stupidity of it deserves coverage.

      • OK let me clarify then – I would not object if this was a link in happenings around the state portion of TM; but to devote the space and time that Ms Grieder did gives those that support secession a false sense of legitimacy which will lead to more attempts like the ballot initiative that was voted down.

        • dave in texas

          I think we’re mostly in agreement here about the inanity of this whole issue. I’ll just add that, in my opinion, Ms. Grieder’s exasperated ridicule of these nimrods hardly bestows any kind of legitimacy, false or otherwise, to their lunacy.

        • Indiana Pearl

          Like the state official said when he voted it down, “I don’t want my grandson armed with a shotgun facing down the 82nd Airborne.”

  • John Johnson

    I continue to wonder how this many loons are on the SREC. These secessionists are not real Republicans. They are the true RINO’s and need to be addressed as such. They need to resurrect the John Birch Society which the Koch’s father helped establish and move their rants and ridiculous ideas under a new umbrella. All the passive, ill informed, roll with the flow chumps need to wake up and help take our party back from these radical loud mouths.

    • Rules of Blazon

      What is a “real Republican”? How many of those exist in Texas? Name five current elected officials in Texas state government that are “real Republicans.”

      • John Johnson

        There aren’t any. The loons ran the table. The majority of people in Texas who say they are Republican are not the Dan Patrick, Donna Campbell, Konni Burton, Jonathan Stickand types. This said, the majority who support the Geren’s, Straus’s, Eltife’s and Cook’s are passive, quiet, unattached types. They just think that any Republican will do, and head for the kids soccer game or the golf course, or a business meeting in Boston. Cornyn is lost to us – he is simply now a party pawn. Barton and other longtime Reps need to be put out to pasture. They do nothing…but I refuse to believe that the majority of Texans want the Stickland’s and Burton’s moving up the food chain. Stickland thinks Fort Worth giving tax breaks to American Airlines in return for staying in Fort Worth is a good thing. She thinks that any tax break deal is not worth the jobs, home purchases, brick and motar, and local purchases that these companies like GM, Facebook, Six Flags and others bring to Tarrant County. She takes selfies of herself behind homeplate at Globe Life Park and posts them on FB, but I’m sure she does not think, despite Arlington voters deciding otherwise, that the deals with the Rangers or the Cowboys are good deals either. One of these days the asleep-at-the-wheel Repub’s will wake up. I just don’t know when.

        • Rules of Blazon

          You had me at “There aren’t any.”

          • Jed

            they are *all* real republicans. they just aren’t real human beings.

          • While you probably saw this as witty, it wasn’t.

          • dave in texas

            You’ve got a lot of nerve calling out anyone for an indecorous comment. Either that, or a complete lack of self-awareness.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Both.

        • When Straus is gone.

        • Indiana Pearl

          You constantly preach about moderate Muslims who fail to speak up. What are YOU doing to change the Texas GOP?

          • John Johnson

            I played golf today. The weather was beautiful.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Copped out again . . .

    • Indiana Pearl

      “RINOS”? Gimme a break. This is the face of today’s GOP.

      • Rules of Blazon

        The face and the head and the body and the arms and the legs and the dark, desiccated heart.

        • John Johnson

          I chuckle a bit when I read you poor, Texas, far left Libs pounding on the ill’s of the Texas Republican Party. I find this somewhat ironic since your party here in the state is all but dead. Don’t you think you need to go off somewhere and attempt to become significant again instead of spending your limited intellectual resources on pointing fingers at we Repub’s and our infighting?

          • Rules of Blazon

            We are going to CRUSH you.

          • Texas Democrats have a short memory. They sunk to depths never before seen when they fled to Oklahoma shirking their duties to represent the voter. They will never be in power again in Texas. Texans don’t cutNrun “Remember the Alamo.”

          • WUSRPH

            There is no need to “revive” the John Birch Society. It is alive and sick….During the last legislative session its representatives testified at every hearing on bills to attack the federal govt., as well as most of the rest of the TeaParty type legislation.

          • WUSRPH

            I suggest you go read the Texas GOP platform again…It is supposed to be what the party stands for….If you do, you will find that, by its official action, the State GOP says that its views are a lot closer to Koni Burton’s than to your views.

          • John Johnson

            I understand. I must be doing a poor job of expressing myself. The masses are dozing; the fanatics are not. The sleepers are not radically inclined though everyone is tired of the status quo. The changes those leading the party now are pushing are not what I think the slackers want. We’ll see. Eventually they will wake up.

          • WUSRPH

            Let us hope they do before it is too late.

          • Indiana Pearl

            “Critical thinking” was outlawed for a time on the GOP party platform until the state GOP became a laughing stock.

          • John Johnson

            No one is laughing except you lefties who don’t have anything else to do here in Texas.

          • Indiana Pearl

            I have plenty to do here – spend my money and change the system!

          • Indiana Pearl

            Here’s the long-term problem for the GOP:

            http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/14/a-house-divided

            It will eventually become a regional white people’s party unless adult supervision is imposed. Good luck with that. “Lemmings with suicide vests,” as the man said.

          • John Johnson

            You think Texans will crawl down to the level where your party now resides? I don’t think so. Not in my lifetime.

          • Indiana Pearl

            My party isn’t planning to turn the U.S. into a police state.

            Maybe Cabela’s has a good deal on brown shirts!

          • John Johnson

            You afraid?

          • Indiana Pearl

            You ask me that all the time.

          • Jed

            too late. done deal. all that’s left is the realignment.

            you might want to start looking for a new home yourself. once the corporate types finish relocating to the democratic party, actual progressives will be even further out in the cold than we are now. democrats will win everything and nothing.

    • donuthin2

      Now, with that I agree.

    • dave in texas

      Having once briefly considered (and then quickly abandoned) a run for the SDEC, I can tell you how those loons ended up on the SREC. They were elected to it by a majority of delegates from their Senate district at the most recent Republican convention. Of course, as I’m sure you know, precinct and county conventions draw the most committed political activists, who are usually found at one end of the political spectrum, whether Democrats or Republicans. The difference over the past 10-15 years, and I’m speaking broadly here, is that at the Democratic convention, the fringe issues tend to be things like marijuana legalization (not so fringe these days) and the removal of 10 Commandment monuments from public spaces. At the Republican conventions, they tend to run to secession and punishing gay people (have you ever read the Texas GOP platform? It’s pretty out there).

      I’m reminded of the line from Yeats: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

      I think your moderate Republicans (who are actual conservatives, unlike the radicals who are holding the party hostage) will eventually reassert themselves. Sooner rather than later would be best for all of us.

      • John Johnson

        I hope so, too, Dave.

  • nickthap

    I’d bet my sizable retirement fund that if Texas WERE to secede, Rick Perry would find a convenient excuse for moving to San Diego.

  • Jay Trainor

    I’m hoping for a change of heart among Texas Republicans but will believe it when they are embarrassed by Donald Trump’s hate talk, Greg Abbott’s anti-Syrian refugee talk and Dan Patrick ending his attempt to end therapy for severely disabled kids on Medicaid….

  • Jim

    The US seceded from England, and we all cheer that. Secession is a wonderful thing, and is a truly American ideal.

    • Indiana Pearl

      America had a revolution, not a secession.

      • Jim

        A secession is a revolution, and a revolution is often done by secession

        • jammerjim

          Nope. Secession is a legal thing that someone gets to choose to do. It’s legal and all parties agree to it (or at least agree the option exists). The colonies just flat out declared independence. They knew failure meant the noose.

          • Jed

            partial points (only) for all three of you.

          • Natefromtexas

            Well technically Texas is talking self-determination. Secession is simply they mechanism of it withdrawing from the union. It does not need permission or agreement of any other party to do so. Its very similar to a divorce. You do not need permission of the other party for a divorce, however, there will be negotiation for division of property and assets.

        • Indiana Pearl

          An entity can secede without violence. Revolutions are usually quite bloody.

          • Jim

            I agree. So, a secession without violence is preferable to a revolution

          • Indiana Pearl

            Absolutely! But would Texas fail without the mother ship? You betcha!

          • Jim

            Texas would thrive without the chains of DC. Our economy is as big as Australia, and our love for freedom would make us thrive

          • Indiana Pearl

            Subtract the underwriting that Texas receives from the feds, then see what’s left:

            No military bases, no support for schools and universities, no highway funds, no research institutes, no social security, Medicare, or Medicaid, no small business loans, no crop subsidies, no mortgage deductions . . . i could go on.

            Start thinking about how Texas will replace those missing funds, especially now that the oil and gas industry is weak.

            I’ve seen a couple of communities after bases closed – cemetaries with lights.

          • Jim

            Where do the feds get the money to send here? They get it from you and me, the taxpayers. Then, they send 7% to other states and keep some for bureaucratic costs. Texas is a donor state, and we could either fund those things or cut taxes if independent.

          • Indiana Pearl

            If you think Texas is self-supporting, you’d be wrong. Do the math.

          • Jim

            Texas only gets back 93% of what it sends. Texas has only become a donor state in recent years.

          • WUSRPH

            But much of it “sends” is only made possible by the “spending” in Texas by the federal government on its programs including social security and all the others that provide “income” that Texans can be taxed on.

          • Jim

            That does not matter because if the money is never funneled through DC, all of it stays in our economy and gets taxed by the sales tax.

          • WUSRPH

            But much of it only gets to Texas because of federal “redistribution” …

          • Jim

            No, it is the opposite. Due to federal redistribution, money flows out of Texas. No money comes in to Texas due to federal redistribution. It used to be the way you mention, but now it is all negative for Texas.

          • WUSRPH

            So you are advocating that Texas take over all that federal spending….social security and all the other programs. Otherwise there is going to be a major negative impact on millions of Texans.

          • Jim

            That is a debate that Texans should have. I would probably find myself on the losing end of that debate.

          • Indiana Pearl

            You need some economists to help you think this through.

          • Indiana Pearl

            What do you by “what it sends”? Please define that specifically.

          • Jim

            I’m referring to federal tax money. Primarily through the personal and business income taxes that we currently pay. We, the people, send that money to DC, they send some of it to other states and waste more of it on bureaucracy, then they send part of that back to the state government with various instructions on how to spend it.

          • Indiana Pearl

            But Texans benefit from other economic supports from the feds.

          • Jim

            No, we don’t. The feds only have our money to give back to us.

          • WUSRPH

            Our economy is directly linked to the rest of the country. It could not sustain itself without the markets in the US. Those links would continue only if the US agreed to do so….and why should it?

          • Jed

            you can’t tell a libertarian that the world goes beyond his own driveway.

            he wants to secede, i say let him. one more nut the police & firemen don’t need to protect.

          • gordo

            Except that our economy is largely with the rest of the US. Without those ties, we’re just Venezuela with better barbeque.

          • Jim

            That is not a problem. We will sell our oil, food, cotton, and other items to the union as well as other countries. Foreign trade is how a successful economy works. Venezuela has oil, but has a lousy economy because they are socialist. Texas would be the epitome of capitalism.

          • Indiana Pearl

            What if the U.S. can get better oil prices from the Saudis?

          • Jed

            or venezuela. i hear they have oil but a lousy economy.

          • Indiana Pearl

            And it’s a lot closer than the Persian Gulf.

          • Indiana Pearl

            And Trinidad . . . major allied oil supplier during WWII. That’s were steel drum music originated . . . from all those leftover 50-gallon drums.

          • Jim

            That is capitalism. Everyone tries to buy at the lowest possible price. Texas will always be able to sell its oil because there is a finite supply of it.

          • Jed

            how’s that going right now?

          • Jim

            We sell our oil for roughly the same price as other nations do. Actually, Texas oil sells for a few bucks less per barrel than foreign oil because the feds don’t allow us to export it. Our current options for sales are limited by DC, and secession would open up all markets.

          • Jed

            our current options for sales are right now also limited by that same price you mention. when oil prices drop, texas production drops. right? were texas its own trading entity, the other oil powers would be free to walmart us, dropping their prices to starve our economy. (likely they would have the blessing of the US in doing so.)

            this should be obvious to such an expert on capitalism as yourself, so i will go no further.

            [there is another possible outcome, which is that the US willingly buys all our oil. all of it, since we aren’t smart enough to limit our production when prices are high. then we would be left with nothing. how smug would you be about the texas economic strength when the oil runs dry? as it is, when we run out of oil, we will still have the US to bail us out. and … i’m out.]

          • Jim

            Oil production is slow to drop because the expense of closing a well is often more than that of continuing to harvest the oil. It will drop eventually if the prices continue to be low. Nothing in what you mentioned would change based on national lines changing.

          • Jed

            based on your expert understand of international trade, i gather?

            here’s a thought experiment: think about the long term. in 100 years, what is sustaining an independent texas that has by then lost its oil industry, its beach tourism (due to rising water levels), and its agriculture (due to extended drought and rising temps)? who will be paying to rebuild the infrastructure damaged by man-made earthquakes? what jobs will be emerging for a workforce that has been systematically undereducated for generations? etc etc.

          • Jim

            You know that I don’t believe in that climate alarmism.

          • Jed

            then i assume long term thinking for you is what to do after your morning ablutions.

          • Indiana Pearl

            You don’t get out much. Are you aware that the Marshall Islands are flooding?

          • Indiana Pearl

            And that major portions of the Arctic Ocean are now open for shipping?

          • WUSRPH

            He also fails to recognize that most of Texas’ industry, etc. (and probably a good deal of its oil) is not owned by Texans. It is owned by investors from all over the world…..They might not have the same goals and ideas as his New Texas Republic or any confidence that it can succeed after its secedes. How is he going to make them go along with Texas’ plans—-nationalize them? Seize private property?

    • As usual the wordsmiths jump in and point out the spelling errors of your comment.

  • WUSRPH

    “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the
    Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.”

    U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

    • dave in texas

      “Scalia? That RINO squish?”

      –Tea Party Republicans in Texas

      • WUSRPH

        Texas v. White (1869)

        • Natefromtexas

          Citing the Articles of Confederation as the only evidence for Chases’s ruling is completely illegitimate, and there is nothing prohibiting secession in the Constitution. Not only would this case face significant legal challenge today, denying Texans the right of self-determination would put the US in violation of the UN Treaty with some dire international consequences. I would suggest researching it a bit further before using a case as your sole argument against secession. Well that and the legal equivalent of a Facebook post from a Supreme Court Justice. I would also suggest checking the current Texas Constitution which was authorized in 1871 after Texas v. White and which in the first two paragraphs both defines the perpetuity of the union, and clearly states the inalienable right of the people to alter, reform, or abolish their government in such manner they think expedient. Yes, that would include dissolving a relationship with the union.

          • WUSRPH

            However, Article IV Section 3 of The United States Constitution expressly prohibits Texas, or any other state, from dividing up and forming smaller states without Congressional approval. Similarly, the Texas Constitution DOES NOT PREVAIL over the federal. (That old supremacy clause again.)

            I prefer to follow Madison’s view that adoption of the Constitution was “in Toto and FOREVER.” As the “Father of the Constitution” I think he had some idea of what it meant.

          • The US Constitution expressly forbids Prez Obama from circumventing Congress but he does it anyway. The 5th Court just took him to task for it but he ignores them.
            So when is it ok to ignore the Constitution and when is it not ok?

          • WUSRPH

            Whether President Obama or any president circumvents Congress is a legal question you especially are clearly unqualified to decide. That is the function of the courts. Again, you make untruthful charges—such as the one that the president “ignores” the 5th Circuit. In fact, he is appealing its judgment….while complying with its order.

          • WUSRPH

            Chase cited both the Articles and the Constitution, and when you talk about the Texas Constitution, you somehow seem to believe it prevails over the US…despite the clear supremacy clause. I have to be out all afternoon so I cannot discuss this further until later. But go re-read Texas v. White.

    • Natefromtexas

      That wasn’t a ruling from Scalia, yet a personal letter to someone regarding a screenplay. Either way, his sole opinion does not magically change the US Constitution.

      • WUSRPH

        Neither does your opinion. Precedent says you are wrong. So does history.

  • WUSRPH

    Voting down the secession motion was only one of the two acts by the SREC that showed some degree of acceptance of the need not to embarrass the party and the State. The second was voting against the demand that the GOP move its state convention out of Dallas because of that city’s city council’s decision to clarify that its anti-discrimination ordinance covers transgenders.

    • What?….democrats voted God out of their platform and you’re criticizing republicans? Now thats irony…..

    • BCinBCS

      But…but…but WUSRPH, these secessionist are True ‘Muricans, don’t ja know.

      • Oh don’t have so much contempt for ‘Muricans, just because they love their country.

        • Jed

          they love their country so much they want to leave?

          do you actually try these words out before you type them?

          • Who’s leaving? Do you read what you write?

          • Jed

            the people who want to secede want to leave america. do you agree with that statement, or do we need to start over with basic grammar?

          • Know the difference between North Murica and the US?

          • Jed

            one of them is a suburb of dallas?

    • Indiana Pearl

      Mr. W., I read a history of Texas that said that when the state was admitted to the Union, it was potentially permitted to break into five smaller entities if necessary in order to make it more manageable given its size. Some say Texas is “permitted to secede” because of the accommodation made for its large size. This seems to be common right-wing meme.

      What is correct?

      • WUSRPH

        The resolution of admission did provide for the State to break up into other states…..no one thought something of the size of Texas would be governable, etc…..but there was nothing about secession. Texas tried that argument in the case of Texas v. White (1869) as well as arguing that it had a right to leave the Union.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

        • Indiana Pearl

          This corroborates the history I read. Conservatives around the country come back to this again and again.

        • Natefromtexas

          The argument in the case of Texas v. White was actually the US trying to get out of paying Texas debt incurred by Texas during the civil war, not an argument on the legality of secession. By arguing that Texas couldnt legally secede, then they were able to say all contracts and loans made were null. The only problem was that there is nothing prohibiting secession in the US Constitution or any other US law. As a result, Justice Chase had to turn to the Articles of Confederation which were superseded by the Constitution and have no legal authority.

          • Jed

            there’s nothing allowing it, either.

            how many secessions in world history that were *not* accompanied by bloodshed can you name?

          • WUSRPH

            I suggest you go read Texas v. White again. Among other things you will find that Chase specifically cited the Constitution as furthering the “perpetual union” adopted in the Articles. I have to be out all afternoon so I cannot continue this discussion now. I may pick it up later…althou there is no reason for me to discuss it with someone whose mind is concreted on the subject.

          • Natefromtexas

            The same could be said of you in being concrete that self-determination is illegal. After Texas votes in favor of independence, then we certainly can enjoy a revisit of the Supreme Court case, however, it will be of little consequence to the international law by which the US is bound.

            The problem with opinion of Chase is that the Constitution does not require, enforce, or mention a perpetual union. I know many think the Constitution is wide open for a variety of interpretations, but if you acknowledge the 10th Amendment, then since secession was not specifically prohibited or even addressed in the Constitution, then it is left to the States or the People respectively.

            And if that were the case then the post-civil war, post-Texas v. White, current Texas Constitution that in Article 1, Section 1 specifically limits the “perpetuity of the union” would be in violation of the US Constitution.

          • gordo

            And those of us in parts of Texas who want to remain in the union? You gonna come and take our guns too? Good luck with that. You will need two armies-one for the Mexicans and one for putting down domestic revolts.

          • WUSRPH

            The constitution clearly creates a “more perfect union” than the “perpetual union” that had existed under the articles.
            By the way, the Articles specifically contained a provision that, in effect, allowed secession. You argue that the absence of any specific provision barring secession means it is possible. But it is just as easy (and more logical) to argue that, since they were aware of the provision in the Articles, by leaving it out of the Constitution they were not allowing for secession.

            P.S. You keep combining the first two provisions in Article I of the Texas Constitution into one to boost your argument. They clearly can be read as dealing with different things.

            In addition, it is quite possible that , if your reading is correct, Article I could be unconstitutional under the US Constitution which, by the Supremacy Clause, is always to be considered Superior to any State constitution.

            We have had over the years many things in our state constitution and our laws which were unconstitutional under the US Constitution, this would just be another one.

      • Natefromtexas

        The five states division was part of the original annexation agreement for Texas. However, since northern states were threatening to secede if Texas was annexed, there was not enough support for annexation by ratification of the States. Instead, Texas was unconstitutionally annexed by joint resolution of Congress.

        • Jed

          wow, you are far gone. so texas didn’t want to be part of the union? does texas know this?

        • WUSRPH

          Actually, the Constitution provides for the creation of new states by a joint resolution. That is what they did to make Texas a state. In such a case, there was no need for a treaty since the resolution did not treat Texas as an independent state prior to the annexation.

      • Jed

        neither.

        • Indiana Pearl

          What is correct?

  • Kozmo

    I don’t know that I’d be as dismissive as all that. It’s very presumptuous to insist that the USA is indivisible forever and ever. Or that the will of the people should be denied if they expressly favor separation (just look to the Catalans or Scots, where this issue is very front and center). I’m of two minds about the entire question, but at the least I do not denigrate open discussion about it.

  • Kozmo

    Great poll here showing how Texas is the most disliked state in the union and the one most respondents would LIKE to see kicked out, or leave: http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-how-americans-feel-about-the-states-2013-8

    • Typical liberal mistake, you started with a flawed premise.

    • Indiana Pearl

      I like Texas, but my friends who live elsewhere think we were crazy to move here.
      I tell them it’s like living in a foreign country where the food is good, the natives are friendly, and they speak a foreign language . . .

      • Natefromtexas

        All the more reasons for Texas to be an independent nation again. In the words of John Steinbeck who found himself in a quandary when he reached Texas after setting out to find out what makes America so American, “Texas is a Nation in every sense of the word.”

        • Indiana Pearl

          I like Steinbeck, but he was a Californian.

          • Natefromtexas

            Yes he was, and it was obvious to him how different the culture and the people of Texas were from the other States.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Texas is different from California. Massachusetts is different from Iowa. Each state is unique, but part of a greater undertaking.

          • Jed

            grapes of wrath was a secessionist manifesto. didn’t you read the back jacket?

          • Indiana Pearl

            No. I went to Catholic school. The jacket was torn off and discarded years before I got there. You must have gone to Phillips Exeter.

          • WUSRPH

            You must have gone to a Catholic School many years after I did if they left you read almost any Steinbeck, especially the Grapes…We didn’t even have Hemingway….Of course, the public schools were not much better. I remember when my 9th grade English teacher in public school (the Catholic only went to the 8th grade) assigned us to do an report on a “major American” author’s style”. I did not want to…so I deliberately picked a “major American author” I knew she was not allowed to read in the early 50s at Southwest Texas State Teachers College. I picked John Dos Passos. . She had to study up on him in order to grade the paper. I got an “A” any way.

          • Indiana Pearl

            I read “Steinbeck” in Catholic H.S. Also read “Catcher in the Rye” there. Some nuns are more enlightened than others.

    • Natefromtexas

      Please kick us out! I can’t figure out why all those disliking Texas think its so an atrocious act for us to vote on leaving. Kick out the largest red state in the union. What are you waiting for? Encourage Texans to secede and be rid of us from your government once and for all.

      • Jed

        we agree on this. i still think lincoln got it wrong. had he let the dummies leave, a lot of strife could have been avoided, then and since.

        • WUSRPH

          I know you are not serious, but Lincoln had no choice but to defend the Union to insure that the survival of the concept of the “rule of law” and, as he put it, that “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

          He had to defend the union to defend the entire concept of “the rule of law” and what was established, virtually for the first time in world history, by the acceptance of the outcome of the election of 1800. (Jefferson called it “The Revolution of 1800” when it was established that in our form of government the losers peacefully transferred power to the winners.)

          We could not tolerate any suggestion that if you lost you did not have to accept it but, instead, like spoiled boys you could take your marbles (your state) and go home. Had that act been allowed to stand what was left of the union would certainly breakup (as would the new South)—-giving relief to all those in the world who argued that truly representational government could not last.

          • Jed

            actually i am completely serious.

            i take it you mean that he had to keep them around to force them to accept the legitimacy of the election result. but (1) is forcing someone to remain a member of a club they no longer want to be a member of a commitment to rule of law, or just being a bully? moreover (2) it isn’t clear that by most of our standards of a just election that his election *was* legitimate. he only just managed a majority of states, and his popular vote total was a perry-esque 39.7%. hardly a mandate to start the bloodiest war in our history.

            if it really was about “rule of law,” lincoln could just as well have furthered the rule of law by maintain a compact amongst (only( those states who were willing to agree to it. i’d go further to say that forcibly retaining a bunch of lawless states who subsequently cultivated a culture of resentment actually weakened our nation and its commitment to the rule of law – right up to this day.

          • WUSRPH

            The problem is that once you establish the idea that anytime you do not like the results you can take your marbles and go home, you have undermined the idea of rule of law and the acceptance of majority rule (with some exceptions for protection of the minority). You are giving recognition and support to an idea that would make any large scale (in area and in differing groups) republican government impossible. Lincoln could not let this idea gain a foothold if he were to stay a large scale republic or if any were to be possible anywhere else in the world. Too many enemies of republicanism stood watching and declaring that our form of government could not survive. If the South had been allowed to secede, they would have been proven right.

          • Jed

            1) it isn’t clear, to this day, that “large scale republican government” really *is* possible. we certainly don’t have one, for all that. (representation for the common good, anyone?).

            2) you yourself invoke the acceptance of majority rule as the reason for fighting the war *over an election that was not decided by a majority*! chew on that one.

          • WUSRPH

            It was clearly an election by a “plurality.” We have had several of them…In fact, they happen all the time in state and local elections. Our system provides for that. But to make you feel better I will accept a clarification that the outcome of the election is determined by who gets the most vote which, may or may not be a majority depending on the specific circumstances. The fact is that Lincoln got the most votes. He won. That was the rule of law and the lesson of the Revolution of 1800 with is message to the world that power could be transferred peacefully in a democratic system.
            Our representational system is not perfect. None is….but you obviously think anything less than a “direct democracy” is unacceptable….and that is not our system.

          • Jed

            hmm. well going backwards:

            1) i hope it isn’t *too obvious* that i will only accept a direct democracy, since in fact i think that would be a dreadful idea. the only thing that would be worse than the electoral college would be to let people elect trump tomorrow with one click of a button.

            i favor representative democracy. but i also contend that what we have is neither representative nor democratic.

            so you’re right, what i want “is not our system.” i would settle for the system we were promised, however.

            2) i understand that lincoln won the election. i do not sympathize with the secessionists (tattoo on my back that says “secede” notwithstanding). but even your “clarified” thesis is not unproblematic. specifically, you insist that abiding by the elections results was the only way that power could be transferred peacefully.

            but clearly there was another way. lincoln assumed the presidency just fine. peace could also have been preserved if he had just let the dissenting states leave without any fighting.

            i think your argument is circular, in other words. you are using the idea that we needed to preserve the whole union as your justification that we needed to preserve the whole union.

            i am saying there were other options, and it is far from clear that we would today have a less republican or democratic country as a result. it just might be a lot smaller. which some would contend (then and now) would be a good thing.

          • WUSRPH

            The argument had to be that, in a democratic form of government the only acceptable way to govern is by the rule of law and the rule of the majority/plurality.

            “Peace”, as you define it, would have meant giving recognition to the idea that one could dissolve the government anytime you do not get your way. It would have struck at the heart of the entire concept.
            A limited US might have survived, until say Illinois got mad because a vote in Congress went against it and, pop, their it goes….and on and on. You cannot have a government that means anything under such circumstances.

          • Jed

            you also can’t protect the sacred concept of peaceful political transition by waging war, or maintain large scale republican government with martial law. if the second part of each is required for the first part, then the first part isn’t really happening at all, is it? qed.

          • WUSRPH

            The use of force—in response to the use of force by the South—was a necessity of the time. It happened once under the worst possible circumstances because the “sacred concept” was and is that important.

    • John Johnson

      “Survey Monkey”??? Hahaha. You will believe anything anyone posts as long as it supports your personal feelings. The thing I like about Texans is that they don’t care what outsiders think. Can you imagine,with all the people flowing into the state now, how terrible it would be if we had an even more favorable ranking?

      • Indiana Pearl

        Survey Monkey is a survey platform, not a publication.

        • John Johnson

          Do you think you are the only one that knows what’s what? You make me laugh.

          • Indiana Pearl

            I’m glad I keep you entertained. You have a low threshhold for entertainment . . .

      • WUSRPH

        In fact, our “we don’t care what they say” attitude is a pretty fair illustration of the fact that we care very much…..otherwise, we protest far too, too much.

        • John Johnson

          Sorry…I disagree. I don’t hear about much angst from Texans with regards to unfavorable comments from others. Do you? I remember when American Airlines moved their corporate offices from NYC to Fort Worth. Many said they would never move to “Hicksville”. Many of those eventually did come down to take a look, found they had a misconception and hooked ‘um here as fast as they could. They encouraged other family members to join them, which they did. These people are all around me here in Arlington. They have raised families here and retired. They love it. People love to hate the winners…up to and until they have a chance to check out what makes them so. That’s my take.

  • 6660splendidday
  • Its a know fact that dems cannot discuss issues without resorting to name calling, personal attacks and the three tenets of hate
    1. racist
    2. ‘war on wimmen”
    3. homophobia

    How do the grownups do it? Welp….when Donal Trump calls for a halt on Muslim immigration you have a discussion not a personal attack….like this

    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/12/07/cheney-barring-all-muslims-mistaken-goes-against-everything-we-stand-for-and-believe-in/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

    That is our system, not rioting, or hating policeman, or a mass shooting in a govt building known a gun free zone. You have a discussion.

    • WUSRPH

      JBB Standard Post No. 1, Version 2A-2. Why don’t you try to come up with something new once in a while…Your constant cutting and pasting of the same post is awful old by now. There must be another reason to attack everyone else.

      • Indiana Pearl

        Don’t open his posts.

        • I don’t think you know how.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Oh yes I do. That’s why I never open them any more.

          • yes thats what I said you don’t know how….

          • Indiana Pearl

            What’s your defect? Reading comprehension problems, glaucoma, cataracts, or macular degeneration?

          • Dementia, you forgot dementia.

          • WUSRPH

            I was told at a recent symposium that there are 37 known different forms of dementia, many of which are combinations. How many do you think he suffers from? Probably in the high 20s.

          • hahaha….did you forget you left?

          • I see through bs.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Do your wear goggles?

      • You could just not comment or get a volunteering to help the poor, but instead you prefer to come here and complain. I think you just like complaining.

        • WUSRPH

          Seems a lot of people have been doing a lot of discussing on this thread…..without a word about Homophobia or “war on wimmen” by anyone but you. Racism has been mentioned a couple of times, but I assume you would agree that people who believe they can own other people or in the natural God-given superiority over other races might be racists. But, on the other hand, you probably don’t.

          Maybe you could tell us your views on secession, assuming you have any views on any subject other than the untrustworthiness, greed, and stupidity of all Democrats.

          • But I love reminding dems who they are. Are you ashamed of being a dem?

          • Indiana Pearl

            Nope. Are your proud to be a Trumpista?

  • Would you rather be a democrat?

  • Indiana Pearl

    Keeping it in balance on Burka Blog . . . Cruz’s Princeton roommate is not a fan:

    http://www.liberalamerica.org/2015/12/07/cruz-roommate/

    • John Johnson

      I’m guessing maybe we all had a college roommate who would not speak highly of us. How about you? Got anything better than this?

      • Indiana Pearl

        I lived at home until I got married. My only room mate has been Mr. Pearl. He DOES shower quite regularly.

        If Booksie posts garbage, I’ll return the favor.

        • You’re doing quite nicely on your own….

          • Indiana Pearl

            Thanks! That’s the point!

          • you finally get. But I started it so you lose.

          • Indiana Pearl

            So whoever “starts it” is automatically the winner? Is that why you get up at 3:00 a.m. every morning to post reactionary tripe?

  • Natefromtexas

    What an incredibly ignorant article. If you don’t believe secession is a valid right, then please stop celebrating the 4th of July and condemn the founding fathers as the “traitor” status that is alleged of those seeking self-determination today. The US must not only condemn its history, the history of Texas who seceded from Mexico, but also must immediately leave the UN which requires under its treaty the right of self-determination.

    Just because there are a lot of ignorant unionists out there who believed a bloody war allegedly fought over slavery if your a northerner or States’ rights if you are a southerner also settled the issue of self-determination, does not change the actual law of the land. I have yet to encounter one constitutional expert who can point out where the indivisible nature of the union is enumerated the US Constitution. Furthermore, the Texas Constitution (post-civl war) is quite clear on the matter, both defining the perpetuity of the union (meaning its not indivisible) and that the people have at all times the right to alter, reform, or ABOLISH their government. Yes that would include dissolving Texas’ relationship with the United States.

    Three of the most humorous aspects of those so vehemently opposed to self-determination of Texans, is the complete ignorance that self-determination is a global trend (Scotland, Catalonia, UKIP, French Nationalists, PQ in Quebec, and many more),the utter fear that somehow Texas leaving the United States would dissolve the entire union and that the 49 would not continue on without Texas, and finally that the peaceful expression of self-determination is a declaration of war. Do you remember the headlines last year when the UK threatened to bomb Scotland if they voted to leave? Probably not because it didn’t happen. This isn’t 1861. Texas isn’t considering leaving the US to join a confederation. Opposition to the mere idea of self-determination is directly contrary to the birth of the US (I’m quite sure the red coats in Great Britain were opposed to the 13 colonies exercising their right), ignorant, fear-mongering, and deceitful. I suppose it was a narrow miss for those who hold contempt for freedom and the self-determination of people.

    • WUSRPH

      Texas v. White (1869)—for your constitutional “experts”…..As Madison put it, adoption of the Constitution, was “in toto and FOREVER.”

      • Natefromtexas

        The argument in the case of Texas v. White was actually the US trying to get out of paying Texas debt incurred by Texas during the civil war, not an argument on the legality of secession. By arguing that Texas couldnt legally secede, then they were able to say all contracts and loans made were null. The only problem was that there is nothing prohibiting secession in the US Constitution or any other US law. As a result, Justice Chase had to turn to the Articles of Confederation which were superseded by the Constitution and have no legal authority.

        Madison indeed was a unionist and went to great lengths to keep the union together. But keep in mind, secession was common discussion by Northern and Southern states prior to the civl war. In fact, many Northern states threatened to secede if Texas were annexed. You might want to read up a little ore on Maidson’s contradictory beliefs. http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/11/madison-and-secession/

        “State rights” only means owning a human? Have you ever read the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution? Please tell me you are more knowledgeable about the founding of the united States than that.

        That is correct. The people of Texas remain pledged to a Republican form of government. This makes it abundantly clear it wasn’t just talking about converting the State government to a monarchy or dictatorship.

        I know many people are ignorant to the fact that State is synonymous with Nation. As illustrated by the fact that in the Declaration of Independence, “these united States” sought their independence (or secession) from the “State of Great Britain”.

        Outside of the context of the civil war, Abraham Lincoln was an adamant defender of self-determination and secession. “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,– most sacred right–a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution.”

        • WUSRPH

          Actually, the argument in Texas v. White was whether the bonds and obligations issued by the purported government of Texas during the civil war had any value and whether they could be redeemed. (A whole lot of people had their assets tied up in Texas bonds and there were attempts to get them recognize as valid both in Texas and in the other rebellious states that had issued similar financial instruments.)

          The SCOTUS held that the bonds were worthless pieces of paper because they were issued by a government that never legally existed.

          As to the 10th Amendment. I have written an entire 40-page semi-treatise on “nullification”, which I presume is what you are referring to when you refer to Madison’s “contradictory beliefs”. I believe if you check a little deeper, that there is a legitimate argument about whether Madison believed in nullification at the time he and Jefferson produced the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and his views in 1832 (when he opposed it) BUT there is no question about his belief in a “PERPETUAL UNION”….As he put it during the ratification process for the Constitution, approval by a state convention of he constitution was to be “in toto and FOREVER”.

      • Indiana Pearl

        Here’s an article that states ALL states have to agree that one of the states can secede. And then it could still be vetoed by the president . . .

        https://www.quora.com/What-would-be-the-likely-outcome-if-Texas-announced-secession-from-the-United-States

        • kinda of like having union dues forcibly removed from your pay, collectivism at its finest. Now if we could get into the EU…..

          • Indiana Pearl

            Not like that all, but you seem to think it is. Run with it!

    • Indiana Pearl

      The Scots rejected independence in the last referendum and the Catalans are still part of Spain. Valencians and the Basques have also made noises about separating, but that has not happened. Catalonia, with its Catalan language, is conveniently located next to France. Who is next door to Texas? Can Texas repel an attack from Mexico?

      • Jed

        france. france is next to texas.

        • Indiana Pearl

          My bad. How did I miss that?

          France will beat the bejeezus out of Texas just like Mexico would . . . and France has nukes.

          • WUSRPH

            It tried to be next to us (at least by controlling Mexico) back in the 1860s…..does that count?

      • Natefromtexas

        Yes. Texans absolutely could repel an attack from Mexico. It’s not like we would not expand our current army as a free nation. (Yes we do have the Texas Military Forces including the Texas State Guard who report EXCLUSIVELY to the Governor.) But what indication has Mexico given that it is looking to attack another country? That is an unfounded presumption.

        • Indiana Pearl

          That’s because Texas is now protected by the U. S. military.

        • WUSRPH

          How many divisions (or rifles for that) does the Texas State Guard, an unarmed, most unequipped body have?

          Even the Mexican Army could brush it aside like a bother some fly.

      • Natefromtexas

        Independence was narrowly defeated in Scotland, and there is already a sincere push for another vote. It’s not like it was overwhelmingly defeated. Just because the most current active independence movements have not achieved success that is not proof that the concept is somehow invalid. At the end of WWII there were 54 recognized countries in the world. Now there are close to 200. Obviously independence has been happening quite a bit in the last century. With growing support for euro-skeptics, we see another familiar breed independence and self-determination. Just look at the massive support for the euro-skeptic French National party recently or massive percentage of vote that UKIP received in the last election. This is a global trend.

        • WUSRPH

          “Massive percentage of vote that UKIP received in the last election” HUH?
          UKIP had two seats out of 654 in the House of Commons prior to the last election. It now has ONE. It did better in the elections that no one cares about to the European Parliament, which has no power but it got crushed in the last Parliamentary Election and its long-time leader who had predicted much more resigned.

    • dave in texas

      I was thinking about replying to a couple of your posts until I read “…a bloody war allegedly fought over slavery…” (emphasis mine). If you don’t think the Civil War was fought over slavery, there’s no reason for anybody to take seriously anything you say about history or the Constitution.

      • Natefromtexas

        Dave, lets start by not extracting statements from context. What I said was “a bloody war allegedly fought over slavery if you are a northerner or States’ rights if you are a southerner also settled the issue of self-determination”

        I was acknowledging that most northerners believe the basis for the war was slavery and acknowledging that most southerners believe the war was over States’ rights. Are you really denying that these are commonly held beliefs? There are countless texts and documents available as proof. My point was that neither perception (northern nor southern) purports that the main purpose of the war was to decide the issue of self-determination (which is manifested through secession if the people seeking self-determination are part of a political union).

        • dave in texas

          Fair criticism; I shouldn’t have taken that out of context, but I’d add that just because a belief is commonly held doesn’t make it legally or historically accurate. I’d also add that your arguments about the ability of a state to secede, whether for self-determination or any other reason, don’t stand up to legal or historical scrutiny, either.

          • Natefromtexas

            Thank you. I agree that it is merely commonly held beliefs, but also keep in mind that the history books were written by the winners. We can agree to disagree on whether they stand up to legal or historical scrutiny. Fortunately regardless of 19th century events, in the 20th century the United States signed the UN treaty which has them bound by international law to respect self-determination of a people.

        • Indiana Pearl

          “Self-determination” sounds eerily like the language right-to-die advocates use.

          • WUSRPH

            Blame it on Woodrow Wilson…..

          • Indiana Pearl

            Wilson is in low repute lately.

          • WUSRPH

            You mean just because he RE-SEGREGATED the US Civil Service? That is only one of his errors, but the fact—like it or not–is that his concept of America’s role in the world has dominated our foreign policy ever since just as the concept of “self-determination” has given rise to wars and struggles throughout the world. Which is kind of funny because Wilson, being a racist, never intended it to apply to non-white, non-Western nations since he did not believe that they were capable of handling it.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Interesting to watch institutions of higher education squirm about what to do with statues and buildings that bear his name.

          • WUSRPH

            The problem of Wilson’s racism and how it should affect how we view him is just as complicated as how we should judge Washington, Jefferson, Madison and all the other “Virginia Presidents” and thousands and thousands of people from all our other states who we otherwise call patriots and heroes. (The case of Jackson it is even more complicated by the way he treated the Indians…but then he also stood up for the Union above all when its basic principles were threatened.)

            The best approach I have come up with is to judge them as being men and women who, despite major errors in judgment and their holding beliefs we hold repugnant, still were able to accomplish great things. This means that we have to abandon the State Board of Education’s approach of treating them all as it they were some sort of perfect people, and recognize that they, like us, had faults.

            How this affects the naming of buildings and the raising of statutes is even more complicated since there may well have been events or actions they took that clearly deserve recognition. My answer is to give them recognition for that, but balance it with a fuller explanation of their lives. That’s the best I can come up with.

          • in other words you cannot be a racist if you’re a democrat. How hard was it to admit that?

          • Jed

            also not the states in the union, because lincoln.

        • Texas Take

          Many southerners today airbrush history when they contend the war was over state’s rights. I will provide you a link below to the actual Texas declaration of secession passed by the state congress in 1861 where you can read in explicit terms the reasons for Texas leaving the Union. (I’ll give you a little hint, it’s about slavery.) Would you like a bit of irony too with regards to concerns over “states’ rights?” This same document refers to concerns over states’ rights, all right, but not in support of them, but opposition to states’ rights! The Texas congress cited as one of their causes to secede the fact that northern states exercised states’ rights and passed legislation where they would no longer enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and return escaped slaves back to their “masters” in the south. The Texas legislature specifically stated those states did not have the right to do so. Hope you appreciate the history lesson. Don’t take it from me, read all this for yourself here:

          https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html

      • Woodrow Wilson said that northern democrats alleged the Civil War was about slavery to cover their aggressive economic taxes on the south. Now dems want any trace of him removed from buildings even though he said this 100 years ago.

        • dave in texas

          Woodrow Wilson was full of s**t about that, much as he was about many other things, notable among them his virulent racism.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Sounds like Booksie’s kinda guy.

    • Jed

      “finally that the peaceful expression of self-determination is a declaration of war”

      you need to read some political philosophy written by someone not living in a compound.

      • Natefromtexas

        So Scotland faced imminent war with the UK had they voted yes last September? No. And you suggest that I am the one living in a compound. I would suggest reading about some international events from international media, instead of the watered-down American media outlets.

        • Jed

          so you can’t name any?

          gee, i figured you were good or a couple.

          • WUSRPH

            Actually,, there is at least one example for the late 20th century….the division of Czechoslovakia into two states. It was a forced union that was severed once before (by Hitler) but this time it was done peaceably.
            Most other examples, or course, feature blood and misery—Biafra (attempted) from Nigeria, Bangladesh from Pakistan, India and Pakistan. Should Texas attempt to secede without the approval of the US, I think the response would be economic, not military, and it would crush our economy in a matter of weeks.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Nate has most likely left the building.

        • Indiana Pearl

          Who says they faced “imminent war”? It was never even close to war.

    • gordo

      And all of us who have no desire to be governed by you and your crowd? Do we get to stay in the Union, or will you forces to follow you to folly?

      • Jed

        one of the most difficult aspects of “self-determination” is indeed, *who* gets it. many stories about how and why societies and governments are initially formed talk about the importance of unanimity to the formation of a legitimate society/state. but of course in the real world unanimity is rare to nonexistent, especially when it comes to where to draw borders around already existing communities. for example, the independence of the U.S., which secessionists like nate and jim point to as self-evidently justified, wasn’t unanimous. does that make is less just in your view? should it? quite possibly.

        the solution is also in those same texts (social contract theorists). they say that if you want independence from a previously existing state, it either must be unanimous or *you* have to leave. as in, those wanting an independent texas should have to find somewhere else to set it up. which i think the rest of us would be fine with.

        • John Johnson

          Or one group’s ideals can be forcibly implement… if they are stout enough. We see this much more often than a group taking off for Nirvana in the jungles of Surinam or heading back to Jerrusalem like the Jews did. Verdad?

          • Indiana Pearl

            “Forcibly”? Talkin’ tough, cowboy?

          • John Johnson

            No…just saying. Does speaking the truth indicate a leaning one way or the other?

          • Jed

            yes, it makes you a leftist.

          • John Johnson

            How so?

          • Indiana Pearl

            How do you define”truth”? Your sense of truth and mine are not the same.

          • John Johnson

            Look it up.

          • WUSRPH

            Were you referring to the Jews “heading back to Jerusalem” when you talked about “one group’s ideals can be forcibly implemented”?

          • John Johnson

            No, sir. Read my post again.

        • Indiana Pearl

          Democratic Republic of the Congo is available.

          • John Johnson

            No it’s not. You don’t know as much as you think you do.

          • Indiana Pearl

            You have no sense of humor, JJ.

          • John Johnson

            Yeah, when it comes to the Republic of Congo, I don’t. Have friends who fled from there after husband was held as a political prisoner and tortured for years. They still have family over there and the killing of innocents is still going on. No oil there, so we don’t care.

          • Indiana Pearl

            You got that right.

          • WUSRPH

            The idea of having to find a place to go kind of reminds me of the idea that Hitler had of moving all the Jews to Madagascar. Or the proposal by one South American Country to accept large numbers of European Jews as settlers to get them away from Hitler. The problem is that today we have all these independent nations and we cannot just move in and take over and settle our people like the idea behind Liberia.

        • WUSRPH

          Actually, Kansas has been complaining about losing population and its current governor makes Abbott look like Bernie Sanders’ best friend…so maybe we could send them there to set up their new country. It is not likely that too many people would miss Kansas, after all.

      • Natefromtexas

        You will be able to vote along with all other Texans on whether or not Texas should be an independent nation again. If you are displeased with the outcome of that vote, then you certainly have the opportunity to move to a State that remains a member of the union.

        • gordo

          By your logic, then, those of us in El Paso can vote to join New Mexico, where we have a longer historical, economic, and geographic affinity anyway. And the major metro areas can vote to remain in the Union. And the Lower Rio Grande Valley can rejoin Mexico, if they so desire. What are you left with? A petro state with no people, except for old white people on social security. You gonna honor that? The Union would be under a moral, but not a legal obligation to do so.

          • Natefromtexas

            You do realize the easter half of New Mexico was part of the Republic of Texas? And no, I’m not suggesting they would be included in an independent Texas today.

            Your logic is inconsistent. The proposed vote on Texas independence could not be won without support of the metro areas. It requires a majority vote of the entire State. There is not a proposal for a county or smaller area to leave. Now is it possible for a smaller area to leave? Yes, but they would need to be confident in their ability to self-govern.

            As a current self-sustaining political entity with the 12th largest economy in the world, it is easy to see Texas sustaining as an independent nation. However, El Paso might have a little more difficulty on its own that the large nation of Texas. Can El Paso vote along with all of Texas to leave and then vote again to separate itself, and then vote again for annexation to the United States? Of course, but in reality the migration patterns after the initial vote may not support a win there.

            If you truly don’t support secession and self-determination and think it is un-American, then I hope you are still paying your taxes to Mexico City or to England. If you are simply opposed to Texas becoming independent, I certainly respect that opinion and hope you exercise your right to vote against it.

            Maybe Abraham Lincoln can explain the right of people to secede a little better than I can:

            “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,– most sacred right–a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution.” – Abraham Lincoln

          • gordo

            Not. I said that by your own logic, all parts of the state would then have the right to self determination. Here in El Paso, given our Hispanic and military background, we would assuredly vote to remain part of the Union, and if Texas were to vote to separate, we would join with New Mexico and remain in the Union. Would you attempt to force those parts of Texas that voted against separation to remain with Texas, or peacefully allow them the right of self determination, too?

          • gordo

            Allow me to gently point out that the new Republic of Texas claimed the eastern part of the watershed of the Rio Grande, all the way up into Colorado where the river originates. And they sent a militia expedition into the claimed territory to secure it. And their militia got their butts kicked and surrendered to the natives in New Mexico, got marched ignominiously to Santa Fe, and had to be ransomed back by Texas. Not exactly what would likely happen in the same circumstances today, but probable.

    • WUSRPH

      If anyone is interested in what he is babbling about the UN and international law making the US let Texas go, he is referring to a anti-colonialism resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1960 that states that all colonial peoples have a right to self-determination.

      http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/declaration.shtml

      This is a nice declaration…..but it is hardly something that the UN could enforce on the US if it decided not to let Texas or anyone else secede.

      In fact, the UN Charter is quite clear on such “domestic” matters setting forth in Principle 7 of Article II:

      “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll..”

      I do not know about you, but the question of whether one of its states gets to take all its marbles and go home certainly sounds like “matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”….in this case, the United States.

      Chapter VII, to which reference is made, covers :ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION. It sets up how the UN may institute sanctions or send in peace keeping or military forces. (It was used to justify the intervention in the Korean War, among other things.)

      I presume that, if we Texans started shooting at the feds to force them to let my people go…and it created a “threat to the peace”, someone could call for UN action. Of course, that requires the action by the UN Security Council and guess who has a veto on all acts by the Council….Yep, those evil Yankees called the US of A.

      • Natefromtexas

        The only people I see suggesting that someone “shoot at the feds” are those arguing AGAINST Texas Independence such as yourself. It is ludicrous to think this would happen, and any act of violence is vehemently opposed by the Texas Nationalist Movement, the leading group advocating Texas Independence. Why do you insist on violence? It’s utterly absurd to think that would serve any positive means. This entire movement of Texas independence advocates the peaceful self-determination of Texas by giving all Texans a vote.

        I don’t have time right now for a full rebuttal on your interpretations of the UN Charter, but I can tell you it is more that just an “anti-colonialism resolution”. I will come back and address this in more detail later, but for now please research the following about how self-determination is “a cardinal principle in modern international law, binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter’s norms.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

        • WUSRPH

          The Texas Constitution could say that you are the second son of Christ and it would mean nothing if the US Constitution said otherwise. What is it about the word “supreme” and the “Supremacy Clause” that you cannot understand. Texas is a state WITHIN the federal union of the United States. It is not now, nor has it been since 1846, anything like an “independent state or nation”….It only got its right to exist as a state in the Union by permission of the Union.

          • Natefromtexas

            Yeah the only problem is that the US Constitution in no shape form or fashion, prohibits a State from leaving the union or even addresses the matter therefore it clearly falls under the 10th Amendment. Therefore, without an express prohibition in the US Constitution to stake your claim of Supremacy on this matter, then the Texas Constitution is in full effect on this enumerated inalienable right.

            “If there be a principle that ought not to be questioned within the United States, it is that every man has a right to abolish an old government and establish a new one. This principle is not only recorded in every public archive, written in every American heart, and sealed with the blood of American martyrs, but is the only lawful tenure by which the United States hold their existence as a nation.” — James Madison

            “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and property of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.” — James Madison

            “To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they are governed.” — William Rawle, the author of the leading constitutional-law treatise of the early-nineteenth century, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1825)

  • TM I like the new look.

  • Remember when the government’s paid expert wrote about the NYTimes editorial on gun control?

    “Because while Democrats claim to believe the Second Amendment protects the rights of Americans to own guns, almost every major liberal politician — and leading advocates like The New York Times — has backed a proposal that would arbitrarily, without any transparency, take this right away from them.”

    Do democrats support the little people as they claim or are they authoritarians?

    “Well, fear is powerful enough to induce Democrats to try and deny hundreds of thousands of Americans their constitutional rights and due process. Fear is also powerful enough to provoke this administration to threaten (and lecture) Americans about free expression rather than reaffirm its importance.”

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/08/the-democrats-ugly-authoritarian-turn/

    The democrat party was formed in 1828, they’ve used deception to instill fear into the low information voter. They use hate to stir up the gullible.
    Will Chicago burn this Christmas?

  • Remember when dems created a $2billion dollar slush fund for drought relief?

    http://pushjunction.com/l/21320

    • WUSRPH

      Nope….I remember when the Republican controlled state government of Texas and the voters of Texas approved a $2 billion program to develop new water supplies and to improve conservation. It will help us deal with the millions of new Texas you keep saying are moving here to fell Democrats.

  • WUSRPH

    South Carolina Trumpites favor anti-Muslim steps (including the faith) but also want Obama-style gun controls.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/12/nc-trump-fans-crack-down-on-muslims-and-guns.html

  • WUSRPH

    Anyone remember that $9.2 billion in reduced revenues the Legislature created for itself?…..Anybody remember the affect of lower oil prices?

    http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/12/texas-sales-tax-haul-shrinks-in-three-of-past-four-months-hegar-blames-oilfield-slowdown.html/

    Hegar says he took account of this possible drop in revenues in his last estimate…but then he was not talking about les than $40 oil.

    • Jed

      so he had an opportunity to revise his estimates down, and he still left them high?

      i used to work in corporate revenue forecasting, and i know from experience that overoptimistic planning is a hard habit to break. it usually takes an outright crisis to start getting folks to look at things the way they really are. i worked for a company that had declining market share and revenues for several years running, and a stock price valuation that was not much more than the cost of our physical assets, yet we always built the budget for the next year based on an assumption of doubledigit growth. it never happened, and “nobody” could figure out why we kept missing our plans. but every time we’d drop our plans, we would drop them to a new number that we still couldn’t hit. it took the company being weeks from insolvency to get the board of directors to stop doing that. but once they did, the company was able to do what it needed (i.e. a realistic business plan) to get back on the right track (ps – this company was called “apple computer,” so it has a more or less happy ending).

      what crisis will be big enough to make this happen for texas?

      • WUSRPH

        We may get a preview of that kind of a situation during the next Regular Session if the Texas Supreme Court upholds any significant parts of Judge Dietz’s school finance case decision.
        Combine declining revenues (or a least revenues several billion less than originally projected), the $9.2 billion “hole” the current legislature created in the revenue stream and a court ruling that could require $4 to $6 billion PER YEAR in new spending….and you have a serious problem, made only worse by the fact that the Legislature effectively gets to control 17% of the budget. (The remaining 83% is dedicated by constitutional, statue or circumstances). This means that you either have to go out and get new revenues (“TAXES” and “FEES”) or gut the rest of the general government (which is already underfunded).

        Of course, there is always the possibility of them trying to duck all of it by adopting something like the old “Culberson Amendment” that would, in effect, void the Supreme Court’s decision. Rep Rinaldi actually introduced an even more drastic version of the idea last session. His would have simply declared that the Courts have no power to determine whether the State is complying with the Constitutional requirement for “an efficient system of free public education”. It would give that power solely to the legislature so that whatever it does is automatically assumed to meet the constitutional standard. But his proposal will have to be approved by two thirds of both houses and the voters and one hopes that at least one of the three would block it.

        In any case, dealing with these problems during the next legislature session could be quite interesting to watch.

        • Jed

          “Rep Rinaldi actually introduced an even more drastic version of the idea last session. His would have simply declared that the Courts have no power to determine whether the State is complying with the Constitutional requirement for “an efficient system of free public education”. It would give that power solely to the legislature so that whatever it does is automatically assumed to meet the constitutional standard. But his proposal will have to be approved by two thirds of both houses and the voters and one hopes that at least one of the three would block it.”

          wow, that is in stunningly bad faith. of course, it wouldn’t end there, since the next move would be to challenge school funding in federal court as an equal protection violation (provided this joke of a SCOTUS doesn’t invalidate the entire 14th amendment in the meantime) … but in the interim another 20 years of texas kids get the shaft.

          buncha bastards.

          • WUSRPH

            So far the various plaintiffs have deliberately avoided making it an equal opportunity challenge because they are afraid of the possible negative consequences.

            The problem is that true equity in school funding requires more than equal dollars. It requires a recognition that its costs more to educate some students than others and a system that adjusts for those differences.

            That is why those us involved with the Perot Commission in 1983-84 developed the “weights” for different kinds of students. (Of course, they have never been adjusted to reflect better information or real costs.)

            There are real problems working this kind of a system under an equal protection system since the justification of one weight against another would be very, very complex and perhaps litigious. There is also the possibility that the State would say: Okay, everybody gets the same funding…and fund it at a inadequate level.

            However, rest assured that if the State were to screw up (and screw the kids) with its reaction to the Dietz judgment an equal protection suit WILL be filed. The same is likely if the Texas Supreme Court finds someway to duck a real decision or guts Dietz’s findings. Equity in school funding in Texas is not an issue that the State can continue to ignore.

    • omg the sky is falling…..haven’t you been predicting this for 40 years?

      • WUSRPH

        Dealing with a tight budget does not mean the sky is falling…It just means someone has to show leadership and the ability to write a tight budget. MeNDan has already proved that he cannot do that in the last session by passing THE LARGEST BUDGET IN TEXAS HISTORY after all his claims of all the cutting he was going to do….

        • John Johnson

          Agree. This next session is going to be fun to watch; the results, however, could be painful. My TP senator, Konni Burton, has simply taken up Cruz’s talking points but has no answers for what some of them could mean for our state. Her “no more picking winners and losers” mantra has her pounding on Tarrant County tax abatement deals with large corporate partners here. This includes the ongoing negotiations with American Airlines. I don’t guess she realizes just how many AA employees live here in our county or how much their being here means to our local economy. Others like the Rangers, Cowboys, General Motors, Six Flags, and General Electric would also seem to be included in her “these are bad deals” category. I can understand Cruz addressing special interest subsidies and tax incentives at the Fed level, but if she wants to shut down equitable deals at the local or state level, all these corporations will end up where? It certainly won’t be Texas. If all the other neophyte TP reps and senators broadcast the same message as Sen Burton, the next session will be interesting indeed. If someone wanted to start another PAC to counter what Dunn and Linebeck and Weekley have been doing, now is the time to do it. I’m sure all these aforementioned Tarrant County corporations, along with others around the state would contribute greatly.

  • Is Texas the new Calif?

    “A new study finds hundreds of companies have left the Golden State in the past seven years, with about 15 percent finding a home in the more business-friendly Lone Star state.”
    http://interactives.dallasnews.com/2015/ca-biz-relocation/

    No Texas is still Texas and Calif is a liberal bastion where bored state worker terrorists slaughter the innocent.

    • WUSRPH

      You mean 85% of the firms thought there was someplace better than Texas? How could you and Patrick have let that happen?

      • The feds controled our borders, as soon as MeNDan got in control we closed the border.

        • WUSRPH

          But still 85% of the firms thought you and Dan’s paradise was not for them……How could they not believe all your claims of greatness, both for the State and for MeNDAN, too?

          BYW, a strict reading of your message says that you and Dan are responsible for those firms not coming to Texas as you closed the border to them… But no one should read what you write. It never means either what you said or what you meant.

          • You don’t understand how private industry work.
            It is a matter of functions vs relations.
            A 15% gain is better than a net loss.
            Get Nate Silver latest book The Signal and the Noise.

      • John Johnson

        Come on, WUSRPH…you and Pearl quit letting your hatred of JBB force you to refute everything he posts. A 15% gain of all businesses leaving California is a positive anyway you dissect it. This is the reason our economy is not tanking now with oil and gas going south. I used to pound on you the same way and take a 180 degree position on everything you posted because I thought you were doing the same toward mine. It was foolish. JBB is not going to change. He thrives on getting under your skin. He’s good at it. Please stick to providing the insightful perspectives that your years in politics and the history of same provide. Accept the fact that everyone is not going to agree and that some retorts will be personal and pointed. Some of the retorts might be mine, but I’m going to make a concerted effort to keep them civil.

        • You misunderstand who they are….they thrive on the attn even if they look like bozos while doing it.
          Immature?….yes.

        • JJ you have to understand them as I do….they bask in any attention….any.

        • Indiana Pearl

          JJ, you make excuses for Booksie. He does a poor job of advocating for conservative viewpoints. Instead he makes a fool of himself and his causes.

          • John Johnson

            I have never made excuses for him. He pokes, prods and irritates. He’s good at it. You insist on making yourself a target. You’re good at that.

          • Indiana Pearl

            I don’t suffer fools well . . . And you do make excuses for him.

        • donuthin2

          Good advice, I am as tired of reading the responses as I was the initial post that I just pass by now.

        • Indiana Pearl

          Actually, my Texas Old White Guys, I don’t “hate” JBB. I don’t even know him.

    • Indiana Pearl
      • John Johnson

        I love how you counter with a retort based on a link to an article written in April of 2014. Have you not read current pieces that state that while the oil downturn is hurting us the new businesses unrelated to oil and gas have produced a state economy much stouter than the rest of the country? I think you have; I think you comprehend it; I think you just choose to not accept it. This exposes a lot about you. It is not attractive.

        • Indiana Pearl

          I’m happy to keep you entertained.

          Got any data to support YOUR hypothesis?

          • John Johnson

            Only about three pieces on this subject in the last week or so. Spend your time finding them instead of pulling up stuff from early 2014.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Where are they? You are long on criticism, short on data.

          • Indiana Pearl

            And just because it’s from 2014 doesn’t mean it’s not accurate . . .

          • WUSRPH

            Here is one from last month…..says growth will be about half of what was estimated by the Comptroller, but you are right that there is continued growth.

            http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/11/texas-jobs-consumer-economy-feel-the-low-price-of-crude-oil.html

            The state economy is always going to be sensitive to oil prices as long as the energy industry represents as much as 35% of our economic activity…..but not as badly as in the past.

            The more balanced nature of our state economy has kept us still growing, but at a slower rate as the impact of oil, etc. hits home. You may remember, that I originally said that because of pre-existing contracts and wells coming on line the impact would show up more in the middle or third quarter of this year. That is what is happening.

          • John Johnson

            Yep, I remember. We consumers have been blessed with cheap fuel for months now, and the newbie speculators and gravy train riders, who, once again, expected the trip to never end, have been hammered. Time to hope for the price per bbl to creep back up a bit.

          • Indiana Pearl

            If your only information source is guys you ride around with in a golf cart, I call foul.

  • 6660splendidday

    http://crooksandliars.com/2015/12/texas-ammosexuals-plan-stage-mass-shooting
    Texas Ammosexuals Plan To Stage Mass Shooting
    Yee Haw!

  • wessexmom

    But Erica, you cannot say with certainty that the majority of Texan who show up on election day wouldn’t vote to secede if a proposal to do so was put before them on a ballot. The majority of Texans don’t agree with the extreme right-wing policies of our Governor and Lt. Gov either, but then the majority of Texans don’t vote in state or municipal elections. In recent years, the far right has prevailed at the ballot box and that might hold true for this issue as well.

  • Woodrow Wilson is a progressive’s hero. However when you understand who he really was you understand progressives….it ain’t purdy.

    Besides being a progressive democrat like Obama and Hillary….

    “Wilson was an “unmitigated racist.” He re-segregated the federal workforce after gains made in the Reconstruction era, and removed black officials. This was no accident. In his 1901 book, “A History of the American People,” he extolled the Ku Klux Klan for helping “the white men of the South” to rid themselves of “the intolerable burden of governments sustained by the votes of ignorant Negroes.”
    Most notably, President Wilson led the United States into an unnecessary and disastrous war. World War I has been called “probably history’s worst catastrophe.” Certainly it was the United States’ greatest foreign-policy mistake. British and then US involvement turned a central European conflict into a world war. The war and its consequences arguably led to the Communist takeover of Russia, National Socialism in Germany, World War II and the Cold War.
    Wilson had long advocated a federal government with “unstinted power,” and as president he quickly set about expanding federal power. He pushed for the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank, to centralize control over money and credit.
    He imposed the first income tax under the new Sixteenth Amendment, and then sharply raised rates. He signed the first federal drug prohibition.”

    http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/woodrow-wilsons-racism-isnt-only-reason-princeton-shun-name?utm_content=bufferdbad9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

    Wilson/FDR/LBJ/Clinton/Obama make GWBush look like the smartest and greatest prez ever….

    The chickens have come home for dems. I know who they are now the rest of America is waking up to who democrats really are…..

    • Indiana Pearl

      Boy, you’re all over the place this morning.

      • WUSRPH

        But he is really good at cutting-and-pasting. Too bad he doesn’t always understand what he cuts.

        • Indiana Pearl

          He forgot to include Ivan the Terrible, Ghengis Khan, and Caligula.

          • WUSRPH

            He couldn’t. They were all Republicans.

          • Woodrow the racist Wilson was a progressive dem….

          • WUSRPH

            Strom, Thruman the racist, was both a Democrat and a Republican but he became a Republican only after the Democrats came out of civil rights for blacks. Funny about that.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Who’s “Thruman”? Truman or Thurmond? You get so giddy.

          • WUSRPH

            You know which one I meant…just typed too fast.

          • Nope it was a spelling error and you must be punished for it.
            (Just like my intentional zebra change his spots remark will be pilloried.) By the low information voters of course.

          • Or was Strom just another dem turned republican so he could win elections. A zebra does not change his spots.

          • WUSRPH

            You are absolutely right. Strom became a Republican because he understood that, with the Democrats favoring civil rights, the only party that would elect a racist like him would be the GOP.

  • No wonder dems hate energy companies in Texas….

    http://www.fox26houston.com/news/56536311-story

    These employees aren’t looking for a handout from the government….

    • Indiana Pearl

      You still haven’t told us if you receive Medicare and Social Security.

      • That is my personal information and only relatives and friends are privy sorry you didn’t make the cut.

        • Indiana Pearl

          Snout deeply in the government trough are you . . .

          • Why do you need to know how much money I make/have, need to steal some?

          • Indiana Pearl

            Because you are a PHONY!

          • Nope, you’re an angry old woman a hater.

          • Indiana Pearl

            You’re an angry old MAN!

          • WUSRPH

            He’s got a lot more than his snout in the government trough. He’s in it way over his head….which embarrasses him since he hates the government so much.

          • John Johnson

            I am receiving SS payback and Medicare coverage. Are you suggesting that this is some sort of “gift”? Making such an outrageous statement might get you stoned to death under Sharia law, which, I believe, American Muslims prefer over our Constitutional law. If everyone thought like you do, one of these days your female lineage might be covered head to toe, hitching rides, have an arranged marriage, and a gag stuck in her mouth. Fortunately for them, others of us are not going to let that happen. You can thank us later.

          • WUSRPH

            If that ridiculous Shia law ban passed, Jews would have to stop using the Torah, etc. for their internal affairs, including divorces, just as the Catholics would have to stop using Canon Law. It is a stupid, over reaching idea.

          • John Johnson

            Whoa there, WUSRPH…I posted with tongue in cheek regarding Sharia Law. There was, however, nothing funny about Pearl’s constant suggestion that someone receiving SS and Medicare benefits they paid into all their working lives is on the dole.

          • WUSRPH

            As a recipient of both I agree with you….but the Troll includes such benefits in his description of the infamous 45%ers he is always attacking. He apparently does not agree with either of us, altho I bet he’s on both and any other “govt. handout” he can semi-qualify for.

          • John Johnson

            I have not paid attention to his comments regarding SS and Medicare. If anyone is suggesting these are “gifts” or “benefits”, they are wrong. I’ll pay more attention.

          • Indiana Pearl

            JJ has become radicalized.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Simply pointing out Booksie’s hypocrisy . . . he raves about folks taking money from the government, yet loves his government money.

            Some American Muslims might advocate for Sharia law, but most don’t. You know little about Islam . . .

            I know my grand daughter’s rights as a female are more likely to be respected by Democrats than by the increasingly mysogynistic GOP.

          • John Johnson

            1. SS and Medicare is not the “government’s money”. None of it belongs to the government.

            2.https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/

  • Indiana Pearl

    According to this article, Trump doesn’t have to decide to run as an independent until spring:

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/10/politics/donald-trump-2016-independent-presidential-campaign/

    • WUSRPH

      But to get on the ballot in Texas as an independent he still has to:

      —File an application by next Monday at 6 pm.

      —Not run in the GOP Presidential Primary.

      He would have until later in the year to file the petitions, etc. but has to have applied by Monday.

      Here is the law on the subject:

      Sec. 192.032. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE’S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT. (a) To be entitled to a place on the general election ballot, an independent candidate for president of the United States must make an application for a place on the ballot.

      (b) An application must:

      (1) comply with Section 141.031, except that:

      (A) the application is not required to include a candidate’s occupation, length of residence, or statement that the candidate is aware of the nepotism law; and

      (B) the application must contain the applicable information required by Section 141.031(a)(4) with respect to both the presidential candidate and the running mate;

      (2) state the names and residence addresses of presidential elector candidates in a number equal to the number of presidential electors that federal law allocates to the state; and

      (3) be accompanied by:

      (A) a petition that satisfies the requirements prescribed by Section 141.062; and

      (B) written statements signed by the vice-presidential candidate and each of the presidential elector candidates indicating that each of them consents to be a candidate.

      (c) The application must be filed with the secretary of state not later than the second Monday in May of the presidential election year.

      (d) The minimum number of signatures that must appear on the petition is one percent of the total vote received in the state by all candidates for president in the most recent presidential general election.

      (e) A petition signer’s voter registration is not required to be in any particular territory.

      (f) The following statement must appear at the top of each page of the petition: “I did not vote this year in a presidential primary election.”

      (g) A signature on the petition is invalid if the signer:

      (1) signs the petition on or before the date of the presidential primary election in the presidential election year; or

      (2) voted in a presidential primary election during the presidential election year.

      (h) A candidate in a presidential primary election is ineligible to be an independent candidate for president or vice-president of the United States in the succeeding general election.

      Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended by Acts 1986, 69th Leg., 3rd C.S., ch. 14, Sec. 27, eff. Sept. 1, 1987; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 427, Sec. 7, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

      Amended by:

      Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 614 (H.B. 417), Sec. 32, eff. September 1, 2007.

      He might still qualify as an “official write-in” candidate, but would have to have complied with this to be an Independent. There are similar requirements if he tried to be a “third party” candidate, rather than an independent.

      • Indiana Pearl

        Monday is the drop-dead date for Texas. Should separate the men from the boys.

  • WUSRPH
  • donuthin2

    Sure doesn’t take long to read the blog when you skip over some of the goonies who say very little but say it often.

  • randalclaw

    property values would go in the toilet, you would never be able to sell you home for anything close to what you paid for it…us banks might foreclose on outstanding loans, some companies would move out of state within months. Our friends in other states make jokes about us “Texas” cowboys all the time. Texas is quickly becoming the laughing stock on the rest of the country.

  • I sent the following to the SREC.

    O

    ********
    Dear Chairman Mechler, Vice Chairman Clark, and SREC members:
    Having recently written to you in opposition to the ill-advised efforts to move the 2016 RPT Convention, I had hoped that the need to confront serious threats to the integrity of the Republican Party of Texas would have subsided. Unfortunately, there appears to be an additional threat before us – one that threatens to undermine one of the founding principles of the Republican Party. That threat is the proposal to include a referendum on Texas independence on the 2016 Republican Primary ballot. I urge you to reject this proposal.
    While the proponents of the proposition talk a good game about “letting voices be heard”, the reality is that the question of the Republican position on the matter of secession (and make no mistake, that is what this proposal is really about) was rejected by the GOP in its first national platform in 1856. Those who adopted the platform were quite clear in proclaiming that the Union “must and shall be preserved”. Four years later, in 1860, the Republican Party elected its first president on a platform that declared that “we hold in abhorrence all schemes for disunion, come from whatever source they may”. Again, in 1864, our forefathers in the Republican Party declared that “it is the highest duty of every American citizen to maintain against all their enemies the integrity of the Union.” Has “must and shall be preserved” now become “may and should be dissolved”? Can it be that “abhorrence for all schemes for disunion” has now become “support and advocate disunion”? Can we now reject the duty to “maintain. . . the integrity of the Union” and instead unite with the proponents of disunion in support of sedition and secession? As the descendant of one of those who early Republicans who participated in the 1860 Republican Convention in Chicago, I firmly declare that the SREC has a moral obligation to the generations of Republicans who came before them to stand firmly for the first principle of the permanence of the Union by rejecting any scheme to place this resolution on the 2016 primary ballot.
    Recall, too, that the matter of secession has been definitively settled in both the courts of law and through the shedding of blood. It cannot be denied that the sacrifice of the men of the Grand Army of the Republic from 1861 through 1865 was one based upon the principle that the United States is a nation which cannot be divided. As Abraham Lincoln said at Gettysburg, the war was one to determine whether this nation could long endure. To place this measure on the ballot would be to dishonor the loyal sons of the United States who fought to preserve this nation. And in 1869, the United States Supreme Court ruled as follows in Texas v. White:
    “The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to ‘be perpetual.’ And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained ‘to form a more perfect Union.’ It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?”

    This proposition is therefore nothing less than an act of rebellion against the Constitution and the rule of law – another abrogation of essential principles of found in our state and federal Republican platforms from the beginning of the GOP and up to the present day.
    Remember, too, the words of Sam Houston regarding secession from this indissoluble Union when he refused to take a traitorous oath following the putative secession of Texas from the United States:
    “Fellow-Citizens, in the name of your rights and liberties, which I believe have been trampled upon, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the nationality of Texas, which has been betrayed by the Convention, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the Constitution of Texas, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of my own conscience and manhood, which this Convention would degrade by dragging me before it, to pander to the malice of my enemies, I refuse to take this oath. I deny the power of this Convention to speak for Texas….I protest….against all the acts and doings of this convention and I declare them null and void.”

    Do any of us dare to declare ourselves greater advocates of Texans than the victor of San Jacinto? Do any of us dare to declare ourselves more loyal to Texas, more wise or prescient than he? I tell you that no, we must not dare to do so – and that we must therefore resist the call to sedition that lurks just below the surface of this proposal.
    Make no mistake, my brother and sister Republicans – this is a battle for the very heart, soul, and survival of the Republican Party of Texas. To place this proposal on our primary ballot is to declare the GOP to be disloyal to the United States of America. It will make our party a laughingstock, and lead Texans loyal to the United States to question whether or not the Republican Party of Texas is in fact a serious party which is worthy of being entrusted with the governance of the state of Texas. What’s more, this will reflect on the GOP nationwide, and do damage to the standing of the party nationally and our ability to elect Republicans to the presidency
    There is also a real question as to whether this abominable proposal even has the support to merit inclusion on the primary ballot. The Texas Nationalist Movement, an organization that stands in opposition to the Republican values of Union and support for the Constitution of the United States, attempted to collect sufficient signatures to put this proposal on the ballot. They failed in their effort. Why, then, should we take the extraordinary step of putting this proposal on the ballot for them when they cannot meet the requirements? That would set the precedent for opening our primary ballot to pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control and pro-socialist measures that contradict our beliefs and lack the signatures needed to mandate their inclusion.
    Let me leave you with one final thought. At the beginning of this weekend’s SREC meeting, as at virtually every Republican event I have ever attended, those present will recite the words of the Pledge of Allegiance. As each of you does so, you will pledge your loyalty not to a mere piece of red, white, and blue cloth, but “to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible. . . .” Will you betray that profession of loyalty at the start of the meeting by then voting to place a disloyal proposal on the ballot of our party? Will you vote to put the Republican Party of Texas on the record as saying that the United States may be divided? If you do, you will have broken your pledge – and taken in vain the name of God Almighty. Do not, I beg you, do anything so dishonorable.

    • WUSRPH

      Hurrah for you!

    • John Johnson

      Hear, hear. The fact this is even being discussed is crazy; that it is being discussed at SREC level is scary. Are there no sane, civil, intelligent people seeking leadership positions any longer?

      • One thing our political system needs to work is free speech. We should know by now that often some of our best ideas come from the fringe, why stifle that. What is apparently lacking from the group, and I cannot say with certainty because I wasn’t there, is leadership. But that can be expected from a group that is made up of volunteers.
        Why aren’t the democrats ideas discussed, because they are irrelevant.

        • BCinBCS

          Damn JBB, you posted a sane, well thought out statement…until the last sentence. Just couldn’t resist being petty, could you?

  • Natefromtexas

    “Perhaps most derisible is that none of the SREC members who advocated for the resolution have had the dignity to defend it honestly. They’ve all insisted, with wide-eyed innocence, that they just wanted to ask the question.” Except this statement is completely out of context. The reason the dialog was based around “asking the question” is because that was the purpose of the SREC resolution to place the question on the ballot. The SREC reps were not there to advocate whether or not the people should be in favor, merely to discuss whether or not Republicans should be asked the question. There was no need to discuss their support for Texas independence with any relevance as to whether or not the people of Texas should be allowed to vote in favor or against.

  • Natefromtexas

    “It couldn’t have been more than a third, since Daniel Miller, president of the Texas Nationalist Movement, told Tilove that twenty members of the SREC had committed to supporting the idea.” This shows the terrible bias of the “reporting” of this article. Where is the logic in the fact that since 20 people had committed to supporting the idea, that there is no way that more could have actually supported it when there was an opportunity to vote. At any rate, it sends quite a clear message that approximately 1/3 of the State Republican Executive Committee supported. However uncomfortable it makes Ms. Greider, it means that this concept of the self-determination of Texas is far from a fringe idea.

  • 70% of illegals vote dem
    80% of Muslims vote dem
    100% of terrorists vote dem…..
    as Nate Silver would say the laws of probability point to if you lie, cheat or steal you’re probably a dem.

    • Indiana Pearl

      Illegals don’t vote at all.

      Nate Silver laughs at you.

  • WUSRPH
    • John Johnson

      I found the piece to be simply more of the same…racist, crazy, populist minority group continues to tout their radical man because they are afraid and full of distrust.

      • Indiana Pearl

        You are terrified of your own white shadow.

        • John Johnson

          Your observations mean nothing to me. You have become the proverbial broken record. “Me well read and smart and on the right side of every issue; you lazy, afraid, racist and wrong because you don’t agree with me. It grows old. Go away.

          • Indiana Pearl

            You are a biased right winger. You NEVER criticize Booksie, no matter what he says.

            You are smart, but lazy. You let other people do your thinking for you.

          • John Johnson

            Hahaha. Like I said…a broken record.

          • You like JBB better than me….seriously?

      • WUSRPH

        You seemed to understand the article AND the actual situation fairly well. But it did not overlook that there Is some reason for the fears that give rise to their distorted ideas.

        • John Johnson

          Oh, he was nicer about it, but was right on the cusp of getting there. And you are right that I don’t think we are crazy. I say “we” because I am in the group. I’m not voting for Jeb.

  • WUSRPH

    All this talk has been about an issue the Texas GOP decided not to put on the ballot. At the same time, the Texas Democratic Party was approving six items for its ballot. Not a crazy idea among them.

    http://www.txdemocrats.org/press/texas-democrats-put-up-6-ballot-referenda-for-a-vote

  • WUSRPH

    Did you see where the 13-year-old kid that Cruz had appointed as the head of kids for ted is now working for the Bernie Sanders campaign? Kids that age—-either physically or mentally—often skip from one extreme to another. No word from Cruz on who will replace the young man as top kid for ted.

  • 6660splendidday