Posted on 12/11/2013 6:13:05 PM PST by Windflier
Longtime YouTube political poster, Christopher Greene, makes a strong case for why the state of Texas will secede from the union.
Heh.....sure. Y'all were born in the old republic, so you're grandfathered in.
Yep. I saw it somewhere and snagged it immediately.
I think it’s a moral imperative that you add a fellow “Manger Dog” brother...
I’m feelin’ kinda left out!! Haha!
They’d be Alamo Babies, Corpse!
How do, brother? Been a while...
“If you don’t have enough support to cut the government, you sure are not going to overthrow it.”
Illogical conclusion, typical of your postings.
Voting is what gives people the power in government, and when many people get a check it isn’t hard to figure they will have the power.
War doesn’t rely on those welfare recipients. They have already proven they are lazy slobs incapable of feeding themselves. They are irrelevant to a war.
Lots of stories about who owned the property but this is from the JSC history website: http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum34/HTML/000123.html
Sold to the US government for $20.00 was previously owned by Exxon.
You got it, bro. Adding you now.
” - - - War doesn’t rely on those welfare recipients. - - - “
This SECESSION (not War) will be BECAUSE of “those welfare recipients.”
“WHEN YOUR OUTGO EXCEEDS YOUR INCOME, YOUR UPKEEP WILL BE YOUR DOWNFALL.” - - - - Paul Harvey, radio announcer.
“This SECESSION “
...won’t be without violence of some kind. That is war.
Maybe, but Air Force One will still need Jet Fuel refined in Houston.
In a similar manner that “An Army travels on its stomach,” the World travels on Oil, a fact which will deter aggression and encourage negotiation.
Thus, Texas would be in a position of strength during the bloodless secession negotiations with the current Regime Marxist Democrats, and their always loyal RINOs.
Practically speaking, there isn’t much the Feds can do to stop it, short of invading Texas.
Not going to happen.
Obama can’t stand up to anybody with a full set of balls. What makes anyone think they’d actually pull the trigger on invading a US state.
Especially one so well armed, and one that controls so much refining capacity.
Yes.
It’s a quote from Patton.
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, AFDC, disability, federal pensions, military pensions, farm subisidies, crop insurance, unemployment insurance, student loans, research grants. First figure out what percentage of the Texas population benefits from those programs. Then consider what their reaction will be when told all those programs go away. That is why Texas won’t secede; upwards of half their population would suffer as a result.
“Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible.”
And the ‘..under God..” part was NOT a mistake, will NOT be change, and were proud of it.
As much as I’d love to secede, I see no point of secession unless we can deport all the Liberals. We aren’t quite as Liberal as the other states yet, but we are getting there.
If Texas even looked like it was about to secede, I think a lot of liberals would begin packing. The brighter bulbs among them already know what sort of changes would come to Texas if it became an independent republic again.
The dimmer bulbs among them would just have to find out the hard way. They'd either have to learn to live in a free society as contributing members, or move to the USA.
We can’t have our cake and eat it too. If the U.S. won’t reform, and Texas doesn’t have the guts to separate themselves from the mass suicide of the blue states, then the whole nation will perish.
We’ve got some hard choices for some hard times.
This thread took on a life of its own, didn't stop, and Windflier and I were on the same side as usual and had to defend our Texas. You are very welcome to come and be another rifleman on the wall. I've even got very fine firearms you can borrow should you need more fire power, however, you can't have my PINK rifle, but can use the high powered Remington rifle and shotgun as they are too heavy for me. I'll also use my two 38s, one with laser.
Early in our history, Sam Houston and Davey Crockett came to Texas to help us. There is a white statue of Sam Houston north of me about 20 miles and he is as tall as the tallest Pine tree - he towers beside the highway. His final home was in Huntsville, TX. He and his Texas army defeated Santa Anna and if we have to fight for Texas again, we will.
If we had to secede, we would hope it would be a peaceful separation but knowing Hussein and Holder and how they both totally hate Texas for defying them already, we would be ready for an "unpeaceful" secession.
Correct. It wasn't the Court's purpose to decide the legality of secession, as that was not the issue at hand, and the majority did not entertain any argument that it should not be legal. It just proceeded from the a priori assumption that the wartime government of Texas was illegal while deciding the disposition of the bonds in question. Chase, himself, just made blunt and unsupported claims about Texas' "indissoluble" membership.
Chiles (appearing with White) argued that the then-current State of Texas was trying to forward a legal paradox by claiming itself, for the purpose of nullifying the sale of bonds, to have been invalidated whilst at the same time also claiming to be a valid complainant party for the purpose of establishing standing.
In order to preserve his desired outcome, Chase had to concoct that argument that the legal term "state" was a vagary which could refer to any combination of three things: the territory in which a legal state resides, the people who compose a the political body of a legal state, or the legal institution of a state's government. Chase separated these three things and addressed only the subject of the legality of the seceded government.
By claiming that the seceding government had exited all legal reality while leaving all corporeal and terrestrial matter behind (in a weird, twisted, backwards rapture), Chase presented a sort of "Goldilocks" zone within which the US could have legally conducted otherwise unconstitutional measures within its constitutional domain, or constitutional measures beyond its constitutional domain, or, basically, just whatever.
Chiles had argued that it was an either/or legal dilemma; that either Texas had been in (and the bond sale was legit), or that Texas had been out and then conquered (and therefore not recognizable). Chase found a third way that doesn't really precisely address popular secession or the removal of territories by arguing that, it this particular case, the people and the land of Texas just happened to still be within the United States because the seceding government had delegitimized itself, voiding the ordinance of secession. This allowed him to rule against the party actually claiming that secession was illegal while preserving an outcome which depended upon it being so.
The Supreme Court did not FIND secession to be illegal, it derived a conclusion from the prior assumption that it just WAS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.