Reply With Quote
I guess he's never heard of the civil war.
If ever an epitaph were to be written for failed governments, businesses and ideologies it would be this — "It'll never happen." There are few phrases that adequately capture the human capacity for denial like this one.
But there is one inescapable truth that is unfolding before the eyes of the world right now. "It" never happens — until "it" does.
With Scotland's independence referendum now over, the world has had a wake up call. In a country where 10 years ago, most Scots believed that a vote on independence would never happen in 2014 — it did.
And it's been happening around the world in places where the general consensus was that it would not or could not happen. At the end of the Second World War, there were 54 recognized countries on the globe. At the end of the 20th century, there were 192. And in the 21st century, the number has grown even larger.
Attention is now on the number of nations where independence movements have been steadily, and often silently, growing for years. And no place is getting attention like Texas.
In Texas, as part of our work with the Texas Nationalist Movement, we've heard "it'll never happen" more times than we can count. But, just like in the rest of the world, it is happening right now.
Regardless of the incessant arguments from those opposed to Texas independence that center around "can't" and "won't," Texans are coming to the realization that it "can," it "will" and it "must."
Prior to the Scottish referendum becoming major global news, there were more websites, polls, blogs, and discussions dedicated to the issue of Texas independence than about Scottish independence.
Texas independence sentiment has been steadily rising over the last decade. This was highlighted in a recent Reuters poll. The question was asked, "Do you support or oppose the idea of your state peacefully withdrawing from the USA and the federal government?" In Texas, the numbers were surprising to some. In a state where the majority of the electorate is comprised of Republicans and Independents, among those groups, 51 percent support the independence of Texas.
Our organization, the Texas Nationalist Movement long ago surpassed every other political organization in Texas on the digital battleground — social media reach. Currently there are no other political organizations in Texas that even come close to the TNM in social media reach. Our Facebook page alone has more "LIKES" than the Republican Party of Texas, the Democratic Party of Texas,
Battleground Texas and the Libertarian Party of Texas combined. Among non-partisan organizations, like the TNM, no one comes close.
But our successes have not come solely in the digital realm. Over the last three years alone, leaders and volunteers from the TNM have hosted over 1,000 events and meetings throughout Texas to spread the message of Texas independence.
This has led to greater political involvement from supporters of Texas independence including a resolution filed in the Texas House of Representatives that redeclared Texas sovereign rights, not under the United States Cons ution, but under the Texas Cons ution. Local-level elected officials have come out of the shadows in support of Texas independence. Openly Texas Nationalist candidates have run for state-level offices garnering, not the usual handful of protest votes received by minor parties but, votes totaling in the hundreds of thousands.
This growth has not been entirely fueled by a reaction to the current regime in Washington, D.C. Rather, there is a sense among Texans that it's just time. Even the hero of the Texas Revolution Sam Houston, after the annexation of Texas said, "Texas will again lift its head and stand among the nations." And Texans, in increasing numbers, are believing that the time is now.
Disbelief persists in the United States that it can actually happen here. Much as the government of the United Kingdom and the people of Scotland were able to sit down like adults and have rational discourse on self-determination, it's time to start having adult conversations about the relationship between Texas and the United States because regardless of the persistence of denial, it is happening.
Commentary by Daniel Miller, president of the Texas Nationalist Movement. He is a sixth generation Texan and has been personally involved in Texas independence advocacy since 1996.
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/09/22/texas...ommentary.html
heard on NPR that this asshole has a good chance of getting enough sigs to put Texas independence to a referendum. The Repugs would be helpless to stop it.
More proof that Repugs, VRWC, rightwingnuts create and live in a fantasy world, a false reality that suckers you ignorant mother ers EVERY TIME.
I guess he's never heard of the civil war.
rightwingnuts are impervious to facts, including scientific and historical facts. Lock-step, blind ideologies and fantasies are their realities.
"...reality has a well known liberal bias" - Dr. Stephen T. Colber, D.F.A
That doesn't matter, that was in the 1860s in 2015 you can't just viciously attack the out of someone for peacefully exercising their right to self determination. Did the UK invade Scotland for holding their referendum? Of course not, you'd lose all legitimacy in the eyes of the international community. And Putin has said that he supports Texas secession, I'm sure China would too for meddling in their affairs.
It absolutely matters. Succession in the United States is a settled issue. The supreme court has said so explicitly 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 Cons ution 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?https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...R_0074_0700_ZOThe Cons ution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States. When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
They can say whatever they want but it doesn't make it legitimate, what are they going to do attack us? They have no moral right.
The law and its affirmed application (via supreme court) makes it legitimate. They will replace the Texas government, blockage the state, do whatever is necessary unless the other states decide its ok for Texas to leave. "They" have moral and legal right.
No one has the right to take away someone's right to choose and their own self determination. They have absolutely no moral authority to use aggressive measures against peaceful people.
Btw blockades are an act of war and they would be starving millions of innocent people, that is unacceptable in 2015
Texas is not a person.
Texas is comprised of people and if the majority of them decide they want something else then it's their right to choose. A government that is willing to use violent force against its own citizenry to meet political goals should be abolished anyway. They would just show people that Texas is right to leave. This scorned woman stuff is just that, for women.
If Texas wants to leave all the Feds can do is with old funds and pout. No one is worried about them and their gross incompetence. They should try to hold Iraq before trying to hold Texas.
Texas is a state, a political and geographic body, that entered a union and cannot leave unilaterally. That is fact. That is settled. When the confederate states succeeded, there weren't even recognized as a sovereign state by foreign governments.
I sincerely doubt violence would even be necessary or would be used.
The bigger problem for Texas succession advocates is that unlike during the Civil War, the state itself would be split quite sharply among those who don't support unilaterally leaving the union and those who do. It would be both an internal conflict and an external one. Hardly a recipe for success.
As I've said before, TX as a nation, means USA closing all military bases, firing all federal civil service employees, pulling NASA out of Houston, zero $ for Medicaid, Medicare for TX citizens, TX citizens lose their US citizenship and passports (Happy Trails overseas, kickers), etc, etc.
In a secession/independence scenario, the citizenry subjected to the hypothesized violent force by the US government would not be US citizens.
The irony here is that they actually would be US citizens since the USA doesn't recognize unilateral sucession, but to m>s, they wouldn't be US citizens because they would be independent. So he's contradicting himself.
and how about USA billing TX nation for all the federal highways in TX?
Texians are ing stupid, but they're rightwingnuts, so that's par.
So then it's an illegal war waged against a foreign people
Not if it's a declared war. Certainly your position would not be that any war entered into by the US government against foreign people is illegal per se, right?
Under no justification can you legally declare war against a peaceful nonaggressive people. That's in violation of international law.
Texas is one of a handful of states who pay in more tax revenue than we get back in subsidies. We are tired of subsidizing the northern states and don't need you to build roads. We will just let you keep what we've already paid and call it even.
We'll get you without declaring war.
"Under no justification can you legally declare war against a peaceful nonaggressive people"
eg, USA invading non-threatening, peaceful Iraq for oil.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
