I’m A Tenther, and So Are Texans

Or so it would seem…

I didn’t realize that I had another “name caller” appellation to go along with “denier”, but The Left seems to love name calling.

On Hannity on the Fox channel, he was interviewing a guy from a Texas organization that is pushing for a separate Texas Republic. I tried their web site, but it was swamped so ‘no joy’. ( I suspect a few hundred million people all hit it at once, and likely a Denial Of Service attack or three were launched by Obama supporters as well… it would fit the known behaviour patterns).

http://www.texasnationalist.com/ So maybe later it will be working…

The presenter said that they needed 25,000 signatures, but had gotten 80,000. So their petition is on it’s way to Obama. He did not expect it to achieve anything as it was more of a ‘Mother may I please’ and toothless if denied. So that’s one petition on it’s way. Would be interesting to know the history of such things. Had any other petitions ever been submitted before (other than The Confederacy days, that is… when Texas DID secede.

So I went on to duckduckgo and did a web search instead. (Having, earlier in the day seen a news report that the US Government had issued more requests for ‘usage’ information to Google than the next 3 or 4 countries combined, I’m happier using a search engine that doesn’t track me so much. That it is outside US subpoena reach is also a feature. No, not got anything to hide. Just don’t see any reason to put my interests in the hands of the Federal Government… and since I do a lot of interesting searches for things to make into articles, it would undoubtedly trip many key words. Heck, just the nuclear and Islam searches ought to cause a ‘hit’.) So I did a websearch. Lots of links showed up.

Turns out there’s a lot of interesting history to Texas and secession (real and hoped).

From the Wiki, I picked up some ideas where else to look. Also a bit of name calling about “tenthers”. That has a wiki too.


The Tenther movement is a political ideology and a social movement in the United States that espouses that many actions of the United States government are unconstitutional. Adherents invoke the concept that the states share sovereignty with the federal government and with the people by citing the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as the basis for their legal and ideological beliefs:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Adherents believe that political authority enumerated in the United States Constitution as belonging to the Federal Government must be read very narrowly to exclude much of what the national government already does. They argue for the recognition of limited sovereignty of the States. Opponents use the term in order to draw parallels between adherents and 19th century states’ rights secessionists, as well as the movement to resist Federal Civil Rights legislation.

Some object to the name “Tenther” as it originated as a pejorative used by those opposed to the movement’s ideas, in an attempt to reference and draw parallels to conspiratorial movements such as Birthers and Truthers.

Seems to me that the 10th Amendment is pretty darned clear. It’s in the list of enumerated powers, or The Feds just can’t do it. Does belief in freedom of the press and religion make me a “Firster”? Though most likely I’m even more radical than they say. I believe in unlimited sovereignty of the States, that then create and deligate a limited sovereignty to the Federation. Just like the constitution says.

Further down, it talks about what ‘tenthers’ believe. As I believe those things, I guess that makes me a ‘tenther’.

Adherents oppose a broad range of federal government programs, including the War on Drugs, federal surveillance, and other limitations on privacy and civil and economic liberties, plus numerous New Deal legislation to Great Society legislation, such as Medicaid, Medicare, the VA health system and the G.I. Bill.

Tenther movement should not be confused with libertarianism, although the two often have similar positions. Whereas libertarians oppose programs such as the War on Drugs on ideological grounds, seeing them as unjustified government intrusion into lives of its citizens, tenthers hold that such programs may be perfectly acceptable but only when implemented by individual states. Libertarians are opposed to sodomy laws and believe that “the government has no business in the bedroom”. In contrast, it has been argued by tenthers that the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated sodomy laws in all U.S. states where they remained, was an unconstitutional federal intrusion into what should have been a states’ rights area; from the tenther perspective, “there clearly is no right to sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution” and “the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards”. Tenthers also oppose involvement of the Federal Government in enforcing the federal War on Drugs, particularly in states that have decriminalizing legislation such as California.

Not so sure I agree with them on the Libertarian divergence. I think the “war on drugs” is BOTH a 10th amendment issue AND a liberty issue. Similarly sodomy and various forms of ‘transfer payments’. There is NO authority for funding a national propaganda service in PBS or handing money to Big Bird. (Despite the fact that I like both, like having them, and think some way ought to be found to keep public broadcasting alive and well, most likely via local, private, donations. It was much more balanced back in the ’60s prior to Central Control of the money spigot. Bill Buckley was a favorite of mine on PBS.)

But it gets even more interesting. Back on that Texas wiki, it looks like a load of Texans are also “tenthers”


Texas House Concurrent Resolution 50

On February 17, 2009, House Concurrent Resolution 50 was introduced and on May 30, 2009, the resolution passed in the Texas House of Representatives with amendments. The resolution reads in part:

RESOLVED, That the 81st Legislature of the State of Texas hereby claim sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and, be it further

RESOLVED, That this serve as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers; and, be it further

RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.

On April 9, 2009, Governor Perry affirmed his support for the resolution. Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University, said “We haven’t heard as much talk about Texas sovereignty and states’ rights in the last 30 years as we have in the last week.”

However, the Texas resolution is not binding on the Federal government. Among other things, the U.S. Supreme Court case Texas v White established this principle, and remains the last legal word in the debate.

That “Texas v. White” is where The Supremes said the prior secession was null… so I don’t see where it applies at all to a discussion of 10th Amendment application. But political wiki can be like that…


In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were “absolutely null”

Oddly, further down, in quoting from the decision, it DOES give conditions under which a State can withdraw:

“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.”

Unclear is just how many of the States are needed to grant ‘consent’. But if the War Between The States was not a revolution, what was?

A passing note goes to the fact that the decision also seems to assert that a Direct Democracy is not allowable as a State form of government. It MUST have a republic… Again quoting from the decision:

The authority for the performance of the first had been found in the power to suppress insurrection and carry on war; for the performance of the second, authority was derived from the obligation of the United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government. The latter, indeed, in the case of a rebellion which involves the government of a State and for the time excludes the National authority from its limits, seems to be a necessary complement to the former

So wonder if that excludes socialist non-republics?… Central Committees and all…

At any rate, while that ruling seems to say “Can’t just leave”, it looks to me to be unrelated to “10 th Amendment” demands.

OK, so “revolution” is an OK exit, and if the other States say it’s OK. From what I remember of the map, more were “Red States” than not. (or at least more area). So looks to me like a vote of the Red States to let each other all go is all it would take. Though personally I think they ought to vote to kick out the blue states…

Oh, sidebar on red and blue. Yes, they are backwards. One election one of the TV news shows used those colors and, IMHO deliberately, used red for Republicans to avoid coloring the Democrats with their (more appropriate) socialist associated color. Then some other TV news shows picked up on it and it became a standard feature. Now we’re stuck with it. Deliberate lying? Or just the usual ‘backwards think’ of the loons of TV Liberal News? Hard to say…

One also has to wonder if the War Between the States was not a ‘revolution’, what is?!

It also looks like the vote count is still rising. The wiki has an even higher count listed:

Post 2012 Presidential Election

On November 9, 2012, an online petition was created on whitehouse.gov titled “Peacefully grant the State of Texas to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government.” The petition states:

The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the US suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it’s citizens’ standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.

As of 12:35AM CST, 14 November 2012, the petition has garnered 93,111 signatures, far more than the 25,000 signatures required to illicit a response from the White House

Interesting times, I think…

Having rallies in Austin, too (though this was from last year):


Texas Nationalist group rallies for secession in Austin
, ASSOCIATED PRESS | March 5, 2011

AUSTIN — The Texas Nationalist Movement marked Texas Independence Day with a rally on Saturday at the Capitol urging Texans to save the state by seceding from the United States.

A small but enthusiastic group of Texans gathered on the steps of the Capitol, as an assortment of massive Texas flags blew above them in the chilly afternoon breeze.

Outrage was spread evenly toward Democrats and Republicans as leaders of the movement expressed their disgust for the growing national debt and the federal government’s treatment of Texas.

“Texas can take better care of itself than Washington,” said Lauren Savage, vice president of the movement. “We are here to raise interest in the Legislature of the possibility of secession to cure the ills of America.”

Members are demanding that state lawmakers introduce a bill that would allow Texans to vote on whether to declare independence.

Fed up with federal mandates, the burden of unsustainable taxes and disregarded votes, members say secession has been a long time coming.

“This is a cake that’s been baking for 85 years,” said Cary Wise, membership director of the Texas Nationalist Movement. “All this administration has done is light the candles.”

Maybe It’s time to pick up that Texas citizenship… At one time you could become an official resident of Texas by sending a letter stating the intent to move there to some department or other…

FWIW, there’s a long defense of why States do have the right to secession (due to the fact that the States had to write into their constitutions a statement they would not secede that would be pointless otherwise along with an appeal to some earlier law; so it might well be that the above Supreme court ruling isn’t the last word…)

It also makes clear why my Texas Uncle can’t stand the idea of voting Republican. Seems they were part of “reconstruction” in Texas and not very welcome…

Following the War Between the States, Texans wrote the Constitution of 1866, which they intended to permit a restoration of civilian government under President Andrew Johnson’s mild Reconstruction program. The new constitution actually nullified secession and did not declare that secession was unconstitutional. Andrew Johnson did accept it. Those of you aware of Reconstruction history know that such leniency (by Lincoln or Johnson) was unacceptable to the Radical Republicans, who seized control of Reconstruction, established military rule and impeached the president. Not only was there an impasse between Congress and the Executive Branch, but recall that at the time the Supreme Court was a constitutionally conservative institution, so Congress withdrew jurisdiction for Reconstruction from the Supreme Court!With the help of the Grangers, Texans eventually took back their State ten years later. President Grant refused to send federal troops to prop up a discredited and unpopular Republican state government in Texas. Voters ratified their new state constitution in 1876, which remains in effect today.

To act as if secession is settled legally is ridiculous. Absent an Amendment to the Constitution, all we have are acts of Congress respecting secession—which leads to the same situation we had in 1832 or 1860. Acts of Congress can and do change. Moreover, political power can be brought to bear: by two other branches of the national government; by every state in the union; and by popular opinion and public action.

It would also seem that Texas snuck by with a ‘nullify’ of the prior secession and NOT an actual ‘make it unconstitutional’… so they don’t even have to change their constitution to do it ;-)

God I love Texas some times!

In Conclusion

So I’m reaching the point where I need to start making a list of the “names” I’m being called by the Loony Side Of Left. Denier. now “Tenther”. Some others I’m sure. So much vile bile, so little thought and substance… The reality is just that I follow the meanings of words very closely, do not let them drift on the wind or change with political whim, and like my science done cleanly and in a clear search for truth. NOT with an agenda.

Who knows, maybe someday they can call me Texan too ;-)

Half the family is from back that-a-way, so we’ve ‘got roots’ (or more accurately, the spouse does… can one be “Texan by marriage?” ;-)

Lets see… Utah, not keen on The Union I’d guess. Texas. Arizona too. Likely Nevada. Heck, we could likely reconstruct the whole of Deseret and add it to Texas. Toss in Oklahoma too most likely. Heck, I’m pretty sure Wyoming and Montana would be happy to join the party. Colorado likely not so much… And New Mexico has a large Government Dependent population… But I’d bet the Dakotas would be signing up too. All that oil to drill and produce. Hmmm….

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Political Current Events and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to I’m A Tenther, and So Are Texans

  1. Ian W says:

    As with all legal agreements, if one party to the agreement starts to disregard the terms of the agreement and nothing is done – the agreement becomes moot. If copyright or patents are not defended then it becomes worthless having them. The same goes for The Constitution. What is the point of all these carefully and painstakingly thought out words if the Congress, Administration or Supreme Court disregard them and no-one does anything about it? It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court gets carried away with niceties of legal argument rather than understanding the basic reason for the whole Constitution – thus allowing it to be nibbled to death by greedy power hungry ducks.
    There are lots of good ideas that come out of Congress to which the response should be – “Really good idea NOT YOUR JOB!” But it was to be expected that the Congress and Administration would become power hungry – it is disappointing that the Courts and the State governors have been complicit in the dilution of the strength of The Constitution. It is the same in Europe where the ’10th Amendment’ equivalent is called ‘subsidiarity’ – and the Eurocrat equivalent of the Federal Government, the European Commission completely and continually disregards it. The ‘Global Governance’ ideas of the UN are probably a similar symptom: representatives starting to think they are instead ‘leaders’. This is exacerbated by the ‘professional politician’ class.
    Now though we are seeing deliberate attempts to disregard The Constitution. We recently had a ‘presidential’ statement – “If Congress refuses to act I will just go around them.” — Apparently not realizing that the entire point of the Constitution was to inhibit actions by one of the three branches unless there was agreement. So now we see rule by Royal decree – Executive Orders; we have a Queen with her own coach (Air Force 2) who tells us NOT to eat cake and Courtiers (tzars) in the Palace (Whitehouse), and baying multitudes of commoners given favors (food-stamps, ‘free’ education ). I always find it strange that the more left wing the individual in power the more regal the behavior.
    The only way out would appear to be a 28th Amendment Restating the 10th Amendment and the limitations on Federal powers. Until then expect more decrees and more expansion of power as no-one appears willing to standup for The Constitution.

  2. philjourdan says:

    I simply turn it back on them when they start their childish name calling. That seems to drive them batty as they hate being called immature.

    I am a tenther as well. At least that one has an element of truth to its core.

  3. Graeme No.3 says:

    Western Australia joined the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, but voted in a referendum in 1933 to withdraw. The petition to do so was rejected by the UK Parliament on the grounds that it didn’t have the approval of the Commonwealth Government, as required under the Statute of Westminster. The Statute is the act of the British Parliament which established Australian independence (see what happens when lawyers get into power).

    Faced with over two thirds of the votes against them, the politicians in the Federal Parliament (at that time sitting in Melbourne) took drastic action; they decided to keep at least one of their promises!

    Every few years someone in WA raises the possibility of secession again, but the movement doesn’t get far as no one in power wants to allow a popular vote.

  4. p.g.sharrow says:

    Allowing Members of the Government to interpret the provisions of the contract that is supposed to control them does not work. There is no provision for enforcement of the terms of the contract, constitution, except honor! “Evil Bastards” do not have honor. Something stronger then honor must be in place to control governmental “Evil Bastards”. pg

  5. Judy F. says:

    There has been some wistful talk where I live of forming a state that consists of eastern Colorado, western Nebraska, western Kansas and eastern Wyoming. The “blue” in Colorado is mostly along the Front Range; those populated areas that are just east of the continental divide and follow Interstate 25 such as Denver, Boulder, Fort Collins and Pueblo. The eastern 1/3 of the state is rural and supported Romney for the most part. (I think my county was 67% for Romney although I may not remember correctly) The new state of CoWyNeKa is sparsely populated, rural, geographically alike with very similar ideals and goals. Maybe the answer to the Red/Blue states problem is just MORE Red states. Think of the power that the small Eastern Seaboard states such as New Hampshire, Massachusetts etc. hold in our Nation, with their Senators and electoral votes. How many Rhode Islands or Connecticuts would fit inside a Colorado or Wyoming? It was one thiing to look at the colors on the electoral college map.http://flapsblog.com/2012/11/08/president-2012-the-final-electoral-college-map/ versus the county map results http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=election+map+by+county+2012&qs=n&form=QBIR&pq=election+map+by+county+2012&sc=0-26&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&id=0EDA2F9E682265A9E3D449E18A072988F58225BF&selectedIndex=64.
    There is indeed a divide in our country, where much of the power is in relatively small areas. Instead of seceding, maybe there should be passports needed between the states. If you are on “the list”, you won’t be allowed in. People from Washington DC or New York City need not apply. :)

  6. John F. Hultquist says:

    A ‘coordinated effort’ (important phrase, that) could be undertaken to have Tenthers move from red-to-blue. Flood just enough Tenthers into Ohio, Oregon, Florida, and Pennsylvania to change the color of the receivers but not the senders. This would not change the popular vote but the Electoral College could change.

    But that won’t happen. More likely are the sorts of things discussed in several of your recent postings. Demographics and compounding now control much of our (USA) destiny. We can watch (get a supply of popcorn) but there is not much to be done about it.

  7. adolfogiurfa says:

    @E.M.: You have a good “smell”, something seems to be looming around up there….
    Perhaps it´s because of the changing magnetic fields. In any case you could choose the south atlantic magnetic anomaly: It looks more peaceful around here :-)

  8. E.M.Smith says:

    @Ian W & P.G. Sharrow:

    You have reminded me of my training in contract law…

    Since the Constitution and the joining of States under it is a form of contract, I would expect the same principles to apply…

    One of them, the foundation of all contracts, is the “Meeting of the minds”. A contract is an embodiment of a meeting of the minds. If there is no meeting of the minds, there is not contract. It is void. This principle is what is used to nullify contracts signed by mental incompetents, for example.

    While it has been weakened some lately, with ‘contract on opening the package’ that sure looks like a ‘Meeting of the minds’ might not happen with one party not reading all the mice-type… it is still a fundamental concept.

    So what happens when one party to the contract has one set of beliefs (that THEY are a sovereign and only delegated a few responsibilities to the Union) while the other party has a different idea what the terms mean? (That you are a perpetual prisoner of the contract and they can do what they want, no exit.) In theory, that would constitute a ‘failure of the meeting of the minds’ and grounds for dissolution of the contract. Like ordering an encyclopedia from a TV ad and discovering that 1/2 way through the series, they swap to Swahili. Grounds to break the contract as there was no meeting of the minds that they could change to a foreign language…

    Looks to me like one could make a reasoned case that the Union of the 1800s was far different from the Union of today, and that the prior contract no longer applied as the ‘meeting of the minds’ then was over a different set of relative behaviours….


    One of my guiding principles is just “State the truth, simply and plainly”. So when someone does something like say a model “proves” nature operates a given way, I’ll say “A model shows that the computer program operates that way, not nature.” So your idea / method falls nicely in line with that. They ARE acting immature.

    So when practicing ‘reflective listening skills’, I’ll sometimes say “You seem to be talking about me as a person instead of the topic.” Having a similar response to insults of “You seem to be using a lot of immature insults instead of addressing the topic.” fits nicely. Thanks.

    @Graeme No3:

    Interesting. Didn’t know that about W.A.

    @Judy F:

    There is a similar problem in California. Those counties inland are often very conservative. But entirely swamped in State votes by San Francisco in the north, and LA Basin in the south. While not very well recorded, there have been occasional murmurings in some of the ‘eastern half’ that the State needs to divide in two, but not N/S, rather East West…

    @John F. Hultquist:

    I suspect the “coordinated effort” has been going on for a few decades now, but from the other side. The way the border is ignored and folks are imported wholesale sure looks to have paid off this election…


    But it sure looks like it’s going to be more interesting up here! ;-)

  9. adolfogiurfa says:

    @E.M.: Let us know your idea about what is coming…just to justify the pop-corn :-)

  10. Petrossa says:

    There is something similar in the EU ‘constitution’. You can as a nation request to get out of the union. Art 26 Lisbon treaty.
    However……. many tiny letters actually make that a pipedream. The short of it is that you as a nation need to request permission from the EU to leave the union with motivation, the EU will then hold a meeting with all member states ( you are not invited) which will then consider the terms and timeframe on which you may get out.

    Since no framework at all has been given as to what these terms and timeframe might entail, it could be anything from sure get out after 1000 years to pay all debts of all other nations first.

  11. omanuel says:

    Here’s a link to Ron Paul’s discussion on Secession from the United States:

    Secession from the United Nations would probably be a better way to end the corruption in international banking, governments, science and the news media.

  12. Peter Offenhartz says:

    I’m in favor of allowing ALL the states to secede where a majority of the population doesn’t believe in Darwinian evolution. Together they could form [Snip. Gratuitous Insult snipped. -Mod] , which would be good for the rest of us. Just sayin.

  13. John Robertson says:

    Sounds good, on the next cycle of Canadian politics you could probably add Alberta, Saskatchewan, Northern BC and possibly the Yukon.We may be heading for an ideological divide as well, watch how Ontario votes next.The non-producers all want more and keep electing those who promise miracle by government. Maths is simple unless you can invoke magical thinking, when the cost of supporting the unproductive rises too far, the productive vanish. I did read recently if the large states divide, the example was Texas into 5 parts, then the electoral map will skew toward the conservative camp.

  14. Jason Calley says:

    @ John Robertson “I did read recently if the large states divide, the example was Texas into 5 parts, then the electoral map will skew toward the conservative camp.”

    I believe that Texas had a provision in their original agreement when they entered the United States that they could in the future — if they desired — split to become five separate states.

  15. BobN says:

    I have lived in Both Washington state and Oregon, they are both divided by the mountains in their political leaning. East of the mountains its conservative, but the big cities and Universities are on the coast, so they control the state and make laws that are crazy for someone not on the coast.

    I am amazed at the passivity of the conservative voters. The election looks to be stolen in my opinion, just study the precinct data and the reports of vote changes. The people hardly raise their voices, where are the party officials. Obama does an end run on congress every other day and Congress sits idly buy letting him usurp their constitutional powers. If similar things were happening to the Democrats they would be in the streets.

    A few disgruntled.people sign a petition for Secession, but they will not do much more on this issue, besides, Justice Scalia has said its not legal. Not that anything else being done is legal either. All these people have done is put themselves n a watch list, proving DHS right that its those white conservatives that are the problem that need watching.

    In my opinion the people will not do anything until the crash comes, but by then it will be too late, everyone will be scrambling to survive and will be begging to have the government help them. This will give government total control and will complete the conversion of America to a socialist country.

    I’m sure many of you are thinking, why don’t you do something. Good question! I guess I don’t believe in leading any charge if I’m not sure anyone will be following. Never set out in life to be a martyr. Like all movements, there needs a spark and it usually comes unexpectedly.

  16. philjourdan says:

    @jason Calley – Not only does Texas have the capability, but the US WANTED them to when they originally joined. Texans fought it and wanted to remain as one.

    But dividing it into 5 would not really help or hurt either side. As you would peal off some democrat parts that would always vote left, and then leave the remainder as solid conservative. And the total representatives would not really change.

  17. R. de Haan says:

    While visiting New York Obama proclaims Americas Recycles Day 2012

    Right, start recycling New York. The US has turned into an assylum with an idiot in charge. Good luck with that.

  18. Zeke says:

    Why call it secession? It is the Federal Government that has abandoned its own position as a limited power. Just let the Federal gov come and try to enforce its energy and health mandates, and fail.

    There were about 10 governors (mostly R’s and a D or two, and including Gov. Sarah Palin) who passed resolutions which specifically named Obamacare and carbon emissions regulations in their statements about Federal overreach, and that they were under no obligation to accept these outrageous taxes, mandates, and controls on their citizens.

    Texas has energy, no state tax, water, and the world’s 14th largest economy. They would do just fine. I would not fear any foreign invasion.

    Wouldn’t Russia invade Alaska, however, if it seceded?

  19. Zeke says:

    The exchanges, the part of Obamacare that Romney loved, are sheer garbage. Here’s California’s model:

    “The California legislation would create the exchange as an independent government entity run by a politically appointed board with representatives of the governor, the Speaker of the California Assembly, and the Senate Rules Committee. From all appearances, this is the version of a health insurance exchange favored by the left, meaning that its main function would be to regulate insurance options, control benefits, enroll individuals in Medi-Cal (the California version of the Medicaid program) and administer government subsidies for public health.”

    Governors should not be accepting these exchange boards giving politicians power over our private relationships with our doctors, etc.. Texas has it right, and so does any state Governor that says No.

  20. boballab says:

    A Texas led secession/rebellion is not a new idea as can be seen in speculative fiction:

    It’s Time to Remember the
    Alamo All Over Again!

    In the long war against terrorism, the US Government had taken on extraordinary powers. And now that the war was won, powerful forces in the government had no intention of relinquishing those powers. As in 1860, the country was on the verge of civil war. And as in 1860, a leader arose to save the country—but it was not the President this time. Instead, the Governor of Texas was the woman of destiny. And, though the Federal Government had more guns and troops, David was about to give Goliath a run for his money. . . .

    “Probably the most realistic depiction of a second American Revolution ever written.” —John Ringo


    This was written by retired Lt. Col Tom Kratman back in 2002 and he still firmly believes that the civilized world is taking a nose dive. You can see that in his Countdown series of books and in his writings in his forum on Baen’s Bar. He also believes that there is going to be a Second American Civil War. The thing about this author is that he isn’t any old Army Lt. Col. he was the Director, Rule of Law for the US Army Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute at the Army War College as well as having combat experience in Desert Storm.

  21. adolfogiurfa says:

    I have found this which perhaps reflects your thoughts:

Comments are closed.