“Gov. Perry believes in the greatness of our Union and nothing should be done to change it,” Frazier’s statement says. “But he also shares the frustrations many Americans have with our federal government. Now more than ever our country needs strong leadership from states like Texas.”
Petitions seeking secession for more than two dozen states have been filed on the White House website asking the Obama administration to “peacefully grant” these states withdrawal so they can create their own government.
The Texas petition was filed on Friday and had more than 70,000 signatures as of Tuesday morning.
That’s some fun writing there, it makes it sound like the petitions are official things. They’re crankery encouraged by the Obama White House to trick people into thinking that they have some influence. They’re also probably data mining ops for the IRS or who knows what.
For what it’s worth, the next four years will be a time for governors to stand tall and defend their states. The Obama government is gearing up to roll over all opposition to its policies. States are obligated to defend their taxpayers and their constitutional authority. I’m not holding out much hope for most states, but Texas can be expected to continue defending itself as a part of the union.
In four years’ time, maybe the Republican Party will actually nominate one of these conservative governors who have successfully kept their states viable despite the storm coming out of Washington. Hey, a blogger can still dream.
I am fully for patience, even painfully long patience. I am not for infinite patience that ends up losing all.
Personally, I am glad that 70,000 have signed. I have not, but that is because I do not wish secession–at this moment in time, and perhaps ever. And honestly, I would never expect those only three generations removed from oppression to come with us, should we ever depart. But I am not categorically against, for all time. After all, we named a capital after a traitor, and states named capitals after his “co-conspirators”. And Lincoln did say, after all, that secession was a moral right (with a qualifier, true).
At any rate, I am glad to see the White House will have to respond in some way. Do I think it might be a troll exercise? Perhaps. But then, doing such is hardly the way to reassure people you have no intention of establishing the new Puritan regime, just with Progressive values, that will crush dissent.
I do look forward to the White House response. My guess is the petition will be declined, perhaps even politely, understanding some Americans are genuinely irritated with the President–though I am not entirely sanguine about that level of professionalism coming from the new priesthood.
But at any rate I do look forward to the party of no-fault divorce and abortion-on-demand telling others that there are certain relationships that just cannot be sundered.
The number of signatures exploded in the last 24 hours. I agree with the commenter above that the response from the WH will be interesting. Our enlightened superiors will no doubt explain the constitution to us as soon as they can find said document.
They know right where the Constitution is.
Hanging on the roller in the men’s bathroom of the White House.
Orion
– brain freeze?
I’ll be happy if they let us secede from Wickard v. Filburn and its descendants.
“…but Texas can be expected to continue defending itself as a part of the union.”
Nullification (e.g., refusing to establish a Texas State Obamacare Insurance Exchange, formal non-compliance with EPA regulatory abuses, and enforced rules prohibiting inappropriate airport body searches) is probably the minimum acceptable response to Federal excesses. Is the incoming Texas leadership up to the task of standing up for Texas? Hope so…
In 1824 (six years before the battle of the Alamo) the Mexican government dispatched a Mexican general to Tejas so that he could report back on the political temperature in Tejas. Part of that report read: “They [Texicans] all go about with their [U.S.] constitution in their pockets, demanding their rights.”
Nothing about that has changed in Texas in almost 200 years.
I read with amusement the many articles, including one on DU, how Texas was going to turn blue due to the increased Hispanic population. The authors of these little ditties never bothered to mention that a good portion of the population increase in Texas were people from other states, fleeing the oppressive taxation of those states along with lack of jobs, falling housing values, increased cost of living and state governements that wanted total control over their lives.
Proudly, I can report that Texas was even redder this election than it was in 2008. Guess LaRaza and ACORN were not as successful as they thought they would be as Obama lost two of the Texas counties, both border counties, that he took in ’08.
And now, Harry Reid is going to have to deal with Ted Cruz.
Don’t Mess With Texas
What’s wrong with secession?
If it’s done by Article V, nothing.
The Question before the House: Why Texas secession at some point would be a good thing to be attempted–or at least useful to liberty.
For:
Because I would like to see what the precedent is going to be when a formerly sovereign Republic, with actual times of real independence, which could have remained seperate but chose to voluntary merge with a larger entity, and which could stand on its own two feet if it chose, objects to having its culture, demographics, and ability to use internal resources changed and ruled by those of whom the majority are not from that entity being dictated to.
For some reason, I think this a useful test case.
Whether any one or several states ever do decide enough is enough and attempts to follow through with secession, I fear it will not prevent the next war for independence.
The political leaders and leading citizens of the 13 original colonies tried every legal and political means available to them to gain some form of self-government and a right to equal representation of their rights and interests in the English parliament only to be rebuffed. When they felt no peaceful and legal option was left…..The first war for independence. In essence, a war of secession from the English Crown. Its result was the birth of 13 new nations (which only later joined in a compact known as the Constitution of The United States).
When the agriculture-based southern states began to wonder if the compact they had entered into with the industrialized northern states to form a constitutional government was not all it was cracked up to be (I won’t go into the slavery issue because I don’t want my comments to be taken up and misdirected from the point), they attempted to use what they thought was their legal and constitutional right to secede-a peaceful solution if you will. That peaceful solution was refused by the north and…….The 2nd american war for independence from a centralized government was on. Its result was the end to the right to free association, the death of the 10th amendment, and the occupation and disenfranchisement of the southern states. (This has Never been settled by the way. Many of those defeated southern states still to this day have to get the permission of the federal government before any attempts to purge voter rolls or change voting procedures etc. can be implemented into law.)
Now once again we of the conservative, freedom-loving, liberty-seeking “red states” feel disenfranchised. Our biggest problem is, we are surely being cut off from having any legal or political means at our disposal to even make our voices heard let alone change the leftward trajectory of the government and the downward slide of our society.
Checks and Balances as written into the constitution? Its irrelevant when only liberals control all three branches.
A free and unfettered press to root out and expose corruption? Its corrupt in and of itself to such a degree it is indistinguishable from just another branch of the central government.
The power of the ballot box? Pleease. Voter fraud is now so rampant and brazenly practiced that it is the “new normal”. And the fact that many of the citizens know this is happening and know that nothing will be done about it causes some to just give up and refuse to vote out of frustration.
Secession? Already been tried. Didn’t head us off from war in 1860-won’t prevent one in 20__ .
So, yes the 3rd war for independence will be coming. I can’t predict when exactly nor can I predict what incident will spark it up. But if our history is any indicator, then sooner or later it will happen.
What if they threw a war, and nobody came?
In 1861 when Lincoln called for volunteers to invade and subdue the South he had no shortage of them.
In 2012, how much of the population is willing to go to war on behalf of the federal government to force seceding states to remain within the union?
Consider the following scenario:
Citizens and state legislatures begin a series of lawsuits to force the federal government to abide by the Constitution. The states sue regarding issues of state sovereignty, the citizens sue regarding infractions of civil rights.
Things like not protecting the border, exerting authority which has not been delegated, not treating the states equally, not ensuring fair elections, etc. It would have to be kept simple enough that any layman could understand.
Of course the federal judiciary isn’t going to let these lawsuits fly – but that’s kind of the point.
By virtue of these court cases a list of grievances and abuses are building a legal argument that transcends federal authority while simultaneously making the point that they have tried all peaceful options to resolve the issues.
This is important – a sincere legal effort has to be made to make the federal government comply with the Constitution.
The citizens then get ballot measures put forth during the 2014 mid-term election cycle.
The ballot measures consist of a vote in regards to a declaration that the federal government has not only abrogated its responsibilities but has also exceeded its authority. It should note no intention to overthrow federal authority – only to reassert state sovereignty.
So now you have the legal underpinnings for the complaints via lawsuits, you have the will of the citizenry being expressed via the voting process, and you have state legislatures passing resolutions announcing that all legal measures have been tried to gain compliance with the Constitution.
Basically, state level versions of the Declaration of Independence.
The more states that joined this effort, the more likely it would be to succeed.
These states then direct their representatives in the House and Senate to write legislation recognizing this right to secede. Still has to get past the president, and in case of a veto it would have to be overridden – but you now have a state going down the path of secession and it’s seen as a serious effort.
The question at this point is how would the federal government respond – and just as importantly – how would the non-seceding states respond?
There is also another major difference between 1861 and 2012 – there is a United Nations now.
I’m no fan of the UN, but here they could be useful as the United States, in the case of Kosovo back in 2008, supported the right of Kosovo to secede.
How could the US then turn around and claim that a state could not secede from the US? This makes the issue go international, though I’m not sure how that would turn out.
Some thoughts on secession.
Secession, though not in our life time, will come to pass. Philosophically socially, politically and religiously aligned organizers will unite, establish a country (name), currency, government, seat of government and redraw contiguous governing geographical entities (old, existing States’ lines will cease to have any meaning) . The Southern Confederacy and Texas’ secession from Mexico both laid the goundwork for this new paradigm and reality. Study them and avoid repeating their mistakes and pitfalls. Secondly, this new country (name to be decided) will not be a charter member of the United Nations.
Settling of accounts will have to take place:lands claimed by Washington DC wil have New Treaties as will all indigenous tribes and peoples living within demarcation of this new country. Contracts for energy, above and below ground will be re-negotiated and new pricing structures re-negotiated, too.
A new body of law, legislature and form of governance will have to be devised, as will archives and central repository for eveything conducted in/and by this new country.
Coinage and financial controls and funding of this new country will have to be established as will salaries, wages systems of remuneration. All contiguous states, joining in this new contry will designate (either straw vote, election or appointment) representatives to contract for and sign documents for this new country
Will this new country have a standing defense system similiar to Washington DC’s? Or some lesser system? A ‘Pentagon?’ Or symbolic “Generals?”
Will there be courts? Or tribunals Or some new form of Judicial system? And relgion? Treatment of all relgions? Some religions? Or one religion?
Things to start thinking about! Once these nettling issues are answered and carefully thought out, then submit proper secession Treaties to Washington DC.
Sending petitions to Mr. Obama’s web site is like Don Quixote fighting windmills…an exercise in futility…and Obama’s administration will control every step of the secession petition. Good Americans will be treated with disdain and mockery. Be aware, wolves are at our doors. Pray. Amen.
Will Obama use NDAA To Arrest State Representatives and Citizens that support Secession?
Could Obama use NDAA To Arrest Secessionists on the Premise members are Militants and Belligerents that pose a threat to National Security?
Recently the Obama administration stated to Federal Judge Katherine Forest that under (NDAA) The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 the President had authorization to lock up belligerents indefinitely. That they (were justified) to lock belligerents up indefinitely—because cases involving belligerents directly-aligned with militants against the good of America—warrants such punishment.) Pres. Obama could use NDAA provisions to order U.S. Military Forces to round up without evidence, millions of Americans including Secessionists and Militias by alleging they are belligerents or a threat to National Security. Many observers believe Obama intends to extend NDAA to imprison U.S. Citizens in Indefinite Detention not involved with or associated with enemy forces.
Hitler included similar provisions in his fascist (Discriminatory Decrees signed February 28, 1933). Almost immediately after the German Parliament passed Hitler’s laws, the Reich Government ordered the arrest of German Citizens and confiscated their guns without probable cause or evidence; delegated powers to German Police and other authorities to arrest anyone Nazi authorities claimed attempted or incited public unrest: arrested among others were outspoken Germans, writers, journalists, peaceful protestors and artists. After World War II the East German Secret Police (Stasi) used the threat of Indefinite Detention to forcibly recruit thousands of informants.
The U.S. 2012 NDAA legislation Obama signed 12-31-11 is similar to Hitler’s 1933 fascist laws the SS and Gestapo used to target persons in Germany for arrest, imprisonment and execution without probable cause; and confiscate millions of dollars of property. Hitler used his laws to suspend Parliament and the Supreme Court insuring his laws could not be rescinded.
During the Obama Administration’s recent request for a (stay) to stop U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest blocking enforcement of vague NDAA provisions, the Obama Administration—never clarified what constitutes a (belligerent); or militant; or what belligerent activities (directly aligned with a militant) to order a belligerent’s arrest or indefinite detention; or what is against the good of America. Under vague provisions of NDAA, the President could accuse anyone of being (directly aligned with militants by way of any political or other association; activity, statement, writing or communication with an individual or group government deemed (militant) to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans. Writers, journalists, Americans that disagree with or question U.S. Government or its allies—may under NDAA be subject to arrest and indefinite detention.
NDAA 2012, like Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees enforces censorship; refers to the Patriot Act e.g. warrant-less searches of private property and forfeiture of property from persons not charged with crime. Provisions in NDAA 2012 keep the door open for corrupt U.S. police; government agents and provocateurs which there are many, to falsify reports and statements to target any American, group or organization for arrest, indefinite detention, complete disappearance; civil asset forfeiture of their property.
You may have noted NDAA referred to the USA Patriot Act. The Patriot Act lends itself to Government / police corruption; the Federal Government may use secret witnesses and informants to cause arrests and civil asset forfeiture of Americans’ property. Witness(s) and informants may be paid up to 50% of assets forfeited. Federal Government under 18USC may use a mere preponderance of civil evidence, little more than hearsay to Civilly Forfeit Private Property. Under the Patriot Act innocent property owners may be barred by government knowing the evidence federal government uses to forfeit their property.
Sections of NDAA 2012 are so broad, it appears U.S. Government or the President could (retroactively) deem an American’s past 1st Amendment activities prior to passage of 2012 NDAA—supported hostilities, terrorism or (Belligerents) to order the arrest and Indefinite Detention of any U.S. Citizen, writer, group or organization.
Under NDAA 2012 it should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated, not allowed legal counsel or habeas corpus may be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention.