Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-01-2009, 09:34 AM
 
2,884 posts, read 5,913,961 times
Reputation: 1991

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jrsgun View Post
It seems that Democracy does not exist anymore it is the new order of Socialism. I beg to differ I do not take my ball and go home not when there is a good fight to be had and our entire country is at risk along with Texas.

God Bless Texas !
That's the problem with Democracy. The moment the masses realize they can vote themselves other people's money, and the politicians realize they can buy votes with other people's money, Democracy morphs into socialism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-01-2009, 01:26 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
4,678 posts, read 9,847,542 times
Reputation: 1960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jrsgun View Post
The true American will not let Barack Hussein Obama & His Obamanation ruin this country and what is left of it without a good fight.
The " true Americans " voted for Obama in a tally of 28 states including 3 of the 4 largest states in the U.S. (Florida, California, and New York.) to 22 states and a difference of 365 electoral votes to 173.

The " true Americans " Were tired of having their country run by the village idiot. I'm glad you're a proud American, However, Your fellow Americans do not agree with you. You sir, are in the minority and like it was previously posted, Your adding his middle name in an attempt to insinuate anything other then the fact that he's the president of the U.S.A. is pathetic.

If by ruin this country you mean fix it and the ruins that were left behind for the last 8 years then yes, He will will " ruin " it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2009, 02:09 PM
 
Location: Hutto, Tx
9,249 posts, read 26,601,067 times
Reputation: 2851
If Obama is proud of who he is then why would he care if people use his middle name? (I know, some use it to stress a point) but it's who his dad was when he was named and it's who he was or is.

Some Americans voted for him, some didn't. But, he got elected. He hasn't really fixed too much yet. And, just a little history lesson. The President doesn't actually make the laws, it's Congress that does so they are even more culpable when things go downhill. And one other thing real quick...If you're gonna call someone pathetic for using Barack's Middle name but then turn around and call Bush the Village Idiot then you are just perpetuating the same thing you are condemning in someone else by turning around and doing it yourself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2009, 02:28 PM
 
Location: DFW
2,904 posts, read 3,482,616 times
Reputation: 1780
I don't think the excitement about Obama will last. I don't think he will be re-elected and I think the majority of the electorate will realize that they made a mistake last November.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNRyan23 View Post
The " true Americans " voted for Obama in a tally of 28 states including 3 of the 4 largest states in the U.S. (Florida, California, and New York.) to 22 states and a difference of 365 electoral votes to 173.

The " true Americans " Were tired of having their country run by the village idiot. I'm glad you're a proud American, However, Your fellow Americans do not agree with you. You sir, are in the minority and like it was previously posted, Your adding his middle name in an attempt to insinuate anything other then the fact that he's the president of the U.S.A. is pathetic.

If by ruin this country you mean fix it and the ruins that were left behind for the last 8 years then yes, He will will " ruin " it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2009, 05:01 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
4,678 posts, read 9,847,542 times
Reputation: 1960
Quote:
Originally Posted by love roses View Post
If Obama is proud of who he is then why would he care if people use his middle name? (I know, some use it to stress a point) but it's who his dad was when he was named and it's who he was or is.
I'm sure he doesn't care. Right wing nuts tend to use it ALOT to imply that he's muslim and some kinda boogyman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by love roses View Post
Some Americans voted for him, some didn't. But, he got elected. He hasn't really fixed too much yet. And, just a little history lesson. The President doesn't actually make the laws, it's Congress that does so they are even more culpable when things go downhill. And one other thing real quick...If you're gonna call someone pathetic for using Barack's Middle name but then turn around and call Bush the Village Idiot then you are just perpetuating the same thing you are condemning in someone else by turning around and doing it yourself.
Actually, It is pathetic for someone to use someone elses middle name against them to make others feel he's some kinda horrible person. We don't control what we're named unless you go have a name change. Bush on the other hand... well...



However, That's old news, He was found at the end of January.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2009, 05:03 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
4,678 posts, read 9,847,542 times
Reputation: 1960
Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Towner View Post
I don't think the excitement about Obama will last. I don't think he will be re-elected and I think the majority of the electorate will realize that they made a mistake last November.
It's hard to say anything exact about anything. I can't say he's a sucess and really, you can't say he's a failure or that he is a mistake based on 120 days in office.

People ( you ) have to admit that he was handed a REALLY bad deal to begin with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2009, 06:29 PM
 
Location: DFW
2,904 posts, read 3,482,616 times
Reputation: 1780
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNRyan23 View Post
It's hard to say anything exact about anything. I can't say he's a sucess and really, you can't say he's a failure or that he is a mistake based on 120 days in office.

People ( you ) have to admit that he was handed a REALLY bad deal to begin with.
It is amazing how people like you assume that someone who doesn't like Obama likes Bush. Bush did some really stupid things in office; however, the idea that the entire economic crisis is his fault is crazy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2009, 07:52 AM
 
Location: Texas
279 posts, read 413,651 times
Reputation: 57
It seems that TNRyan23 does not let it sink in to the fact that George W. Bush does not have the steering wheel [and he did not steer to well himself], but Barack Hussein Obama is steering us right over the cliff with his radical Socialist agenda of higher taxes ,more Government control of our lives which we definitely do not need[I think we have lost enough we surely do not need to lose more], and his agenda to Globilize the U.S. will cost us entirely all of our freedoms including the God given right to protect ourselves. I do believe that Barack Hussein Obama ,when this all comes to a head will eventually destroy this country. Texas may have a rocky road at first if they secede, but it would be entirely better than what Barack Hussein Obama wants to steer us toward. I would take my chances with secession and a fight than the train wreck we are about to have.
D-Towner is right TNRyan23 you assume instead of knowing the facts.

Roll up your sleeves,Let the battle begin
God Bless Texas & The Military

Last edited by Jrsgun; 05-02-2009 at 08:02 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2009, 08:08 AM
 
Location: Texas
279 posts, read 413,651 times
Reputation: 57
Texas Secede!

For an independent Texas Republic

www.TexasSecede.org

HomeWRITBLOGSHOP


Texas Secession Facts
Printer-Friendly PDF Version Doesn't the Texas Constitution reserve the right of Texas to secede?
Didn’t the outcome of the “Civil War” prove secession is not an option for any State?
Didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. White prove secession is unconstitutional?
Is Texas really ripe for a secession movement?
How would Texas—and Texans—benefit from secession?
Are there any organized efforts to promote a Texas secession?
Why exactly are y'all selling this stuff? Q: Doesn't the Texas Constitution reserve the right of Texas to secede? [BACK TO TOP] A: No such provision is found in the current Texas Constitution[1](adopted in 1876) or the terms of annexation.[2] However, it does state (in Article 1, Section 1) that "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States..." (note that it does not state "...subject to the President of the United States..." or "...subject to the Congress of the United States..." or "...subject to the collective will of one or more of the other States...")
Neither the Texas Constitution, nor the Constitution of the united States, explicitly or implicitly disallows the secession of Texas (or any other "free and independent State") from the United States. Joining the "Union" was ever and always voluntary, rendering voluntary withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option (regardless of what any self-appointed academic, media, or government "experts"—including Abraham Lincoln himself—may have ever said).
Both the original (1836) and the current (1876) Texas Constitutions also state that "All political power is inherent in the people ... they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper."
Likewise, each of the united States is "united" with the others explicitly on the principle that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government" and "when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." [3]
Q: Didn’t the outcome of the “Civil War” prove that secession is not an option for any State? [BACK TO TOP] A: No. It only proved that, when allowed to act outside his lawfully limited authority, a U.S. president is capable of unleashing horrendous violence against the lives, liberty, and property of those whom he pretends to serve. The Confederate States (including Texas) withdrew from the Union lawfully, civilly, and peacefully, after enduring several decades of excessive and inequitable federal tariffs (taxes) heavily prejudiced against Southern commerce.[4] Refusing to recognize the Confederate secession, Lincoln called it a "rebellion" and a "threat" to "the government" (without ever explaining exactly how "the government" was "threatened" by a lawful, civil, and peaceful secession) and acted outside the lawfully defined scope of either the office of president or the U.S. government in general, to coerce the South back into subjugation to Northern control.[5]
The South's rejoining the Union at the point of a bayonet in the late 1860s didn't prove secession is "not an option" or unlawful. It only affirmed that violent coercion can be used—even by governments (if unrestrained)—to rob men of their very lives, liberty, and property.[6]

It bears repeating that the united States are "united" explicitly on the principle that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government" and "when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." [7]
Q: Didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White prove that secession is unconstitutional? [BACK TO TOP] A:
No. For space considerations, here are the relevant portions of the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. White:
"When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. 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.
"...The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union ...remained perfect and unimpaired. ...the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.
"...Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union."
— Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 703 (1868)
It is noteworthy that two years after that decision, President Grant signed an act entitling Texas to U.S. Congressional representation, readmitting Texas to the Union.
What's wrong with this picture? Either the Supreme Court was wrong in claiming Texas never actually left the Union (they were — see below), or the Executive (President Grant) was wrong in "readmitting" a state that, according to the Supreme Court, had never left. Both can't be logically or legally true.
To be clear: Within a two year period, two branches of the same government took action with regard to Texas on the basis of two mutually exclusive positions — one, a judicially contrived "interpretation" of the US Constitution, argued essentially from silence, and the other a practical attempt to remedy the historical fact that Texas had indeed left the Union, the very evidence for which was that Texas had recently met the demands imposed by the same federal government as prerequisite conditions for readmission. If the Supreme Court was right, then the very notion of prerequisites for readmission would have been moot — a state cannot logically be readmitted if it never left in the first place.
This gross logical and legal inconsistency remains unanswered and unresolved to this day.
Now to the Supreme Court decision in itself...
The Court, led by Chief Justice Salmon Chase (a Lincoln cabinet member and leading Union figure during the war against the South) pretended to be analyzing the case through the lens of the Constitution, yet not a single element of their logic or line of reasoning came directly from the Constitution — precisely because the Constitution is wholly silent on whether the voluntary association of a plurality of states into a union may be altered by the similarly voluntary withdrawal of one or more states.
It's no secret that more than once there had been previous rumblings about secession among many U.S. states (and not just in the South), long before the South seceded. These rumblings met with no preemptive quashing of the notion from a "constitutional" argument, precisely because there was (and is) no constitutional basis for either allowing or prohibiting secession.
An objective reading of the relevant portions of the White decision reveals that it is largely arbitrary, contrived, and crafted to suit the agenda which it served: presumably (but unconstitutionally) to award to the U.S. federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the states, essentially nullifying their right to self-determination and self-rule, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, as well as the current Texas Constitution (which stands unchallenged by the federal government).
Where the Constitution does speak to the issue of powers, they resolve in favor of the states unless expressly granted to the federal government or denied to the states. No power to prevent or reverse secession is granted to the federal government, and the power to secede is not specifically denied to the states; therefore that power is retained by the states, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment.
The Texas v. White case is often trotted out to silence secessionist sentiment, but on close and contextual examination, it actually exposes the unconstitutional, despotic, and tyrannical agenda that presumes to award the federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the people and the states.
Q: Is Texas really ripe for a secession movement? [BACK TO TOP] A: Probably not (yet). Texans generally aren't the rugged, independent, liberty-conscious folks they once were. Like most Americans, they happily acquiesce to the U.S. government's steady theft of their rights and property via unlawful statutes, programs, and activities.
Unfamiliar with historical or legal details, being largely products of public (i.e., government) "education," today's Texans easily adopt the "politically correct" myths that litter the landscape of American popular opinion. Many don't even know what the word secede means, and believe that the United States is a "democracy" (hint: it's not)[8].
But public opinion and ignorance won't stop us from suggesting that secession is still a good idea for people who value their rights and personal liberty more highly than the temporal affluence, comfort, and false security provided by the U.S. welfare/warfare state. By raising public awareness of even the concept of secession, we hope they might plant seeds that will some day yield a new resolve among Texans for liberty and self-government.
Q: How would Texas—and Texans—benefit from secession? [BACK TO TOP] A: In many ways. Over the past century-and-a-half the United States government has awarded itself ever more power (but not the lawful authority) to meddle with the lives, liberty, and property of the People of Texas (as well as those of the other States).
Sapping Texans' wealth into a myriad of bureaucratic, socialist schemes both in the U.S. and abroad, the bipartisan despots in Washington persist in expanding the federal debt and budget deficits every year. Texans would indeed gain much by reclaiming control of their State, their property, their liberty, and their very lives, by refusing to participate further in the fraud perpetrated by the Washington politicians and bureaucrats.
By restoring Texas to an independent republic, Texans would truly reclaim a treasure for themselves and their progeny.
Q: Are any organizations promoting a Texas secession? [BACK TO TOP] A: Yes. The following organized efforts exist for informing and unifying Texans around the causes of independence and liberty:
  • <LI style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10px">Texas Nationalist (www.TexasNationalist.com) (formerly Republic of Texas), (President, Daniel Miller), functional as of 2007 <LI style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10px">TexasSecession (www.TexasSecession.com) 817-453-5744 <LI style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10px">United Republic of Texas (www.texas.freecountries.org) Yahoo Group: UtdRepTex, established 2005, functional as of 2007 (Combining the New Republic of Texas and Historical Republic of Texas) active as of 2008 <LI style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10px">Texas Constitution 2000 calls on Texans to ratify a new constitution liberating Texas from the economic and statutory slavery of the U.S. government. Their website is http://www.tcrf.com
  • Republic of Texas (www.texasrepublic.info) documents the annexation of Texas as a U.S. state as a having been a fraud in the first place, and reclaims the republic's sovereignty. Contact: trep777@dctexas.net
Outside of Texas, the Registry of North American Separatist Organizations lists a number of other states having active efforts towards secession.
Q: Why exactly are y'all selling this stuff? [BACK TO TOP] A: Texas has a rich history of independent character. She was the first of only two US States ever recognized internationally as sovereign, independent republics (the other was Hawai'i), having won her independence from a heavy-handed despotic government (Mexico) that refused to honor its own constitution (sound familiar?).
We'd like to see Texans showing more public pride in Texas by displaying symbols of Texas' history and spirit of liberty—particularly various renditions of the Texas flag. That's the motivation behind TexasSecede.com, as well as our sister site, TexasFlagMan.com, which aims to be a source of affordable quality Texas flags, flag decals, and Secede decals, as a means of encouraging the public display of support for an independent Texas.
Notes [1] See The Texas Constitution Online[SIZE=-2] [RETURN TO TEXT][/SIZE]
[2] See the Terms of Annexation Online[SIZE=-2] [RETURN TO TEXT][/SIZE]
[3] See the Declaration of Independence Online[SIZE=-2] [RETURN TO TEXT][/SIZE]
[4], [5], [6] See Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era by James M. McPherson; The Real Lincoln by Thomas J. DiLorenzo; A Consitutional History of Secession by John R. Graham; Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men by Jeffrey R. Hummel; When in the Course of Human Events by Charles Adams; Union And Liberty by John C. Calhoun; States' Rights and the Union by Forrest McDonald[SIZE=-2] [RETURN TO TEXT][/SIZE]
[7] See the Declaration of Independence Online[SIZE=-2] [RETURN TO TEXT][/SIZE]
[8] See DemocracyIsNotFreedom.com for details.[SIZE=-2] [RETURN TO TEXT][/SIZE]
© Copyright 2009 TexasSecede.org Contact Us TexasSecede! Blog
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2009, 08:09 AM
 
Location: Texas
279 posts, read 413,651 times
Reputation: 57
Texas Secede!

For an independent Texas Republic

www.TexasSecede.org

HomeWRITBLOGSHOP


Texas Secession Facts
Printer-Friendly PDF Version Doesn't the Texas Constitution reserve the right of Texas to secede?
Didn’t the outcome of the “Civil War” prove secession is not an option for any State?
Didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. White prove secession is unconstitutional?
Is Texas really ripe for a secession movement?
How would Texas—and Texans—benefit from secession?
Are there any organized efforts to promote a Texas secession?
Why exactly are y'all selling this stuff? Q: Doesn't the Texas Constitution reserve the right of Texas to secede? [BACK TO TOP] A: No such provision is found in the current Texas Constitution[1](adopted in 1876) or the terms of annexation.[2] However, it does state (in Article 1, Section 1) that "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States..." (note that it does not state "...subject to the President of the United States..." or "...subject to the Congress of the United States..." or "...subject to the collective will of one or more of the other States...")
Neither the Texas Constitution, nor the Constitution of the united States, explicitly or implicitly disallows the secession of Texas (or any other "free and independent State") from the United States. Joining the "Union" was ever and always voluntary, rendering voluntary withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option (regardless of what any self-appointed academic, media, or government "experts"—including Abraham Lincoln himself—may have ever said).
Both the original (1836) and the current (1876) Texas Constitutions also state that "All political power is inherent in the people ... they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper."
Likewise, each of the united States is "united" with the others explicitly on the principle that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government" and "when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." [3]
Q: Didn’t the outcome of the “Civil War” prove that secession is not an option for any State? [BACK TO TOP] A: No. It only proved that, when allowed to act outside his lawfully limited authority, a U.S. president is capable of unleashing horrendous violence against the lives, liberty, and property of those whom he pretends to serve. The Confederate States (including Texas) withdrew from the Union lawfully, civilly, and peacefully, after enduring several decades of excessive and inequitable federal tariffs (taxes) heavily prejudiced against Southern commerce.[4] Refusing to recognize the Confederate secession, Lincoln called it a "rebellion" and a "threat" to "the government" (without ever explaining exactly how "the government" was "threatened" by a lawful, civil, and peaceful secession) and acted outside the lawfully defined scope of either the office of president or the U.S. government in general, to coerce the South back into subjugation to Northern control.[5]
The South's rejoining the Union at the point of a bayonet in the late 1860s didn't prove secession is "not an option" or unlawful. It only affirmed that violent coercion can be used—even by governments (if unrestrained)—to rob men of their very lives, liberty, and property.[6]

It bears repeating that the united States are "united" explicitly on the principle that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government" and "when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." [7]
Q: Didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White prove that secession is unconstitutional? [BACK TO TOP] A:
No. For space considerations, here are the relevant portions of the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. White:
"When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. 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.
"...The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union ...remained perfect and unimpaired. ...the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.
"...Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union."
— Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 703 (1868)
It is noteworthy that two years after that decision, President Grant signed an act entitling Texas to U.S. Congressional representation, readmitting Texas to the Union.
What's wrong with this picture? Either the Supreme Court was wrong in claiming Texas never actually left the Union (they were — see below), or the Executive (President Grant) was wrong in "readmitting" a state that, according to the Supreme Court, had never left. Both can't be logically or legally true.
To be clear: Within a two year period, two branches of the same government took action with regard to Texas on the basis of two mutually exclusive positions — one, a judicially contrived "interpretation" of the US Constitution, argued essentially from silence, and the other a practical attempt to remedy the historical fact that Texas had indeed left the Union, the very evidence for which was that Texas had recently met the demands imposed by the same federal government as prerequisite conditions for readmission. If the Supreme Court was right, then the very notion of prerequisites for readmission would have been moot — a state cannot logically be readmitted if it never left in the first place.
This gross logical and legal inconsistency remains unanswered and unresolved to this day.
Now to the Supreme Court decision in itself...
The Court, led by Chief Justice Salmon Chase (a Lincoln cabinet member and leading Union figure during the war against the South) pretended to be analyzing the case through the lens of the Constitution, yet not a single element of their logic or line of reasoning came directly from the Constitution — precisely because the Constitution is wholly silent on whether the voluntary association of a plurality of states into a union may be altered by the similarly voluntary withdrawal of one or more states.
It's no secret that more than once there had been previous rumblings about secession among many U.S. states (and not just in the South), long before the South seceded. These rumblings met with no preemptive quashing of the notion from a "constitutional" argument, precisely because there was (and is) no constitutional basis for either allowing or prohibiting secession.
An objective reading of the relevant portions of the White decision reveals that it is largely arbitrary, contrived, and crafted to suit the agenda which it served: presumably (but unconstitutionally) to award to the U.S. federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the states, essentially nullifying their right to self-determination and self-rule, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, as well as the current Texas Constitution (which stands unchallenged by the federal government).
Where the Constitution does speak to the issue of powers, they resolve in favor of the states unless expressly granted to the federal government or denied to the states. No power to prevent or reverse secession is granted to the federal government, and the power to secede is not specifically denied to the states; therefore that power is retained by the states, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment.
The Texas v. White case is often trotted out to silence secessionist sentiment, but on close and contextual examination, it actually exposes the unconstitutional, despotic, and tyrannical agenda that presumes to award the federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the people and the states.
Q: Is Texas really ripe for a secession movement? [BACK TO TOP] A: Probably not (yet). Texans generally aren't the rugged, independent, liberty-conscious folks they once were. Like most Americans, they happily acquiesce to the U.S. government's steady theft of their rights and property via unlawful statutes, programs, and activities.
Unfamiliar with historical or legal details, being largely products of public (i.e., government) "education," today's Texans easily adopt the "politically correct" myths that litter the landscape of American popular opinion. Many don't even know what the word secede means, and believe that the United States is a "democracy" (hint: it's not)[8].
But public opinion and ignorance won't stop us from suggesting that secession is still a good idea for people who value their rights and personal liberty more highly than the temporal affluence, comfort, and false security provided by the U.S. welfare/warfare state. By raising public awareness of even the concept of secession, we hope they might plant seeds that will some day yield a new resolve among Texans for liberty and self-government.
Q: How would Texas—and Texans—benefit from secession? [BACK TO TOP] A: In many ways. Over the past century-and-a-half the United States government has awarded itself ever more power (but not the lawful authority) to meddle with the lives, liberty, and property of the People of Texas (as well as those of the other States).
Sapping Texans' wealth into a myriad of bureaucratic, socialist schemes both in the U.S. and abroad, the bipartisan despots in Washington persist in expanding the federal debt and budget deficits every year. Texans would indeed gain much by reclaiming control of their State, their property, their liberty, and their very lives, by refusing to participate further in the fraud perpetrated by the Washington politicians and bureaucrats.
By restoring Texas to an independent republic, Texans would truly reclaim a treasure for themselves and their progeny.

Q: Are any organizations promoting a Texas secession? [BACK TO TOP] A: Yes. The following organized efforts exist for informing and unifying Texans around the causes of independence and liberty:
  • <LI style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10px">Texas Nationalist (www.TexasNationalist.com) (formerly Republic of Texas), (President, Daniel Miller), functional as of 2007 <LI style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10px">TexasSecession (www.TexasSecession.com) 817-453-5744 <LI style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10px">United Republic of Texas (www.texas.freecountries.org) Yahoo Group: UtdRepTex, established 2005, functional as of 2007 (Combining the New Republic of Texas and Historical Republic of Texas) active as of 2008 <LI style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10px">Texas Constitution 2000 calls on Texans to ratify a new constitution liberating Texas from the economic and statutory slavery of the U.S. government. Their website is http://www.tcrf.com
  • Republic of Texas (www.texasrepublic.info) documents the annexation of Texas as a U.S. state as a having been a fraud in the first place, and reclaims the republic's sovereignty. Contact: trep777@dctexas.net
Outside of Texas, the Registry of North American Separatist Organizations lists a number of other states having active efforts towards secession.
Q: Why exactly are y'all selling this stuff? [BACK TO TOP] A: Texas has a rich history of independent character. She was the first of only two US States ever recognized internationally as sovereign, independent republics (the other was Hawai'i), having won her independence from a heavy-handed despotic government (Mexico) that refused to honor its own constitution (sound familiar?).
We'd like to see Texans showing more public pride in Texas by displaying symbols of Texas' history and spirit of liberty—particularly various renditions of the Texas flag. That's the motivation behind TexasSecede.com, as well as our sister site, TexasFlagMan.com, which aims to be a source of affordable quality Texas flags, flag decals, and Secede decals, as a means of encouraging the public display of support for an independent Texas.
Notes [1] See The Texas Constitution Online[SIZE=-2] [RETURN TO TEXT][/SIZE]
[2] See the Terms of Annexation Online[SIZE=-2] [RETURN TO TEXT][/SIZE]
[3] See the Declaration of Independence Online[SIZE=-2] [RETURN TO TEXT][/SIZE]
[4], [5], [6] See Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era by James M. McPherson; The Real Lincoln by Thomas J. DiLorenzo; A Consitutional History of Secession by John R. Graham; Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men by Jeffrey R. Hummel; When in the Course of Human Events by Charles Adams; Union And Liberty by John C. Calhoun; States' Rights and the Union by Forrest McDonald[SIZE=-2] [RETURN TO TEXT][/SIZE]
[7] See the Declaration of Independence Online[SIZE=-2] [RETURN TO TEXT][/SIZE]
[8] See DemocracyIsNotFreedom.com for details.[SIZE=-2] [RETURN TO TEXT][/SIZE]
© Copyright 2009 TexasSecede.org Contact Us TexasSecede! Blog
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top