Floridians are next in line...
Posted on 12/04/2009 4:58:31 AM PST by Patriot1259
...if and when Texas makes the move to secede, after a majority vote by its people, the federal government will send troops in and keep us from following through.
Does anyone else find this a little strange; that those opposed to secession are opposed because they fear the federal government? I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am for secession because I fear the federal government. I don’t necessarily fear them because I think they will march into Texas and impose martial law, but because if we don’t do something to stop what they are doing to us and the rest of the nation, we will all be living in a third world country, in debt to those who are becoming super powers, such as China
(Excerpt) Read more at thecypresstimes.com ...
Godspeed, my Lone Star FRiends - if your state makes it to the point that they go down this road, you will have many challenges ahead of you ... wish I could move down there ;-)
If this does happen, We’ll move there! I really liked the San Anglo area when I was there in ‘96 for Crash Fire Rescue School.
BS I am the only one who actually flew to D.C. went to my Representatives office and said that I will not participate in the healthcare mandate. Don Young’s staff sounded like they were on board but unfortunately it is, and was, up to the Senate. Lisa Murkowski has been doing some good things, I think it is because she has political cover, but if she can stop Obama care and Cape and Trade then I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Floridians are next in line...
If this does happen nobody will be going anywhere! The feds will put an absolute lock down on travel between states, and you will be too busy surviving to think about anything else. The time to get to where you want to be when TSHTF is now.
“If this does happen, We’ll move there!”
You will not be alone! I’ve been talking about this for a number of years.
A couple of questions do come to mind though. What of the U.S. military personnel in TX? Would they desert? Or, would they be called back to the “U.S.” for other duties?
Would the TX National Guard become the TX military?
This would be first priority, IMHO. You would have to establish security on the borders, not only on the south, but west, north and east as well.
Here is the deal with secession; if you want it, it is an individual task. I do not suggest it because I believe it is a last resort that requires a willingness to die. America is not at that point yet; keep your powder dry.
You have a right to secede, but it's not a CONSTITUTIONAL right. It's a right that predates the Constitution, and does not derive from the Constitution. The Constitution is a supreme national government that lays claim to all its subjects, and acts not just on the states, but on the people directly. The only way out is the way you came in--by convention of the whole. Or by force. Either way is by definition EXTRA-constitutional.
Point is that it is a bad Idea. You have the right to poop your pants, but that does not make it a good idea.
I do not suggest it because I believe it is a last resort that requires a willingness to die...
You’re right but, I prefer thinking of it in the glass is half full version.
“I do not suggest it because I believe it is a last resort that requires a willingness to kill.”
http://www.txsg.state.tx.us/ The Texas State Guard
For the first time in my life, I truly believe that there could be armed insurrection or even a military coup to oust our current President and Congress. If marshal law were to be declared in any state and federal troops were ordered in to enforce Obama’s dictats, I could see mass mutiny in our armed services. If we fail to start a clean out of Congress with the 2010 elections or if those elections are in some way thwarted by Obama declaring some trumped up “national emergency” I could see outright civil war.
If there's one state that could pull it off, it'd be Texas. I'm not against breaking up the USA, but the intellectual groundwork has not been laid. We're nowhere near ready for it.
REMEMBER THIS, TEXANS:
Feds Have Built Only 32 Miles of 700 Mile Double-Border Fence Originally Mandated by Congress
“One reason DHS has been able to do this is an amendment that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R.-Texas) slipped into an omnibus appropriations bill that Congress passed on December 18, 2007. Hutchison’s amendment put a loophole in the fence law that allowed the secretary of Homeland Security not to build the fence Congress had mandated the year before.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/43422
REMEMBER THIS WHEN YOU VOTE FOR GOVERNOR
_______________________________________
>>The Constitution is a supreme national government that lays claim to all its subjects, and acts not just on the states, but on the people directly.<<
Whoa! You may be a subject of the Constitution and its government, but I sure as sh*t ain’t. The Constitution gets its power from the people; not the other way around.
I was born free and I will die free. If it be to protect us from foreign enemes, so be it. And if it be to protect us from domestic enemes, again so be it.
Thanks. This is somewhat reassuring.
Yeah right. You voted for it? It GOT it's power from delegates to state conventions a long time ago. But that power was ill-defined. The language was broad and vague, and left the Supreme Court to sort out. So, the extent and power of the national government, not to mention the extent and meaning of the Bill of Rights, is decided by the Supreme Court. You voted for them?
Consent of the governed is a fairy tale. Try not consenting and see where it gets you. We're governed by the national government under the Constitution because it was in force when we were born, and there's nothing we can do about it. Flatter yourself with talk of freedom all you want, but we're as free as THEY allow us to be.
Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention 20 June 1788:
“No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.”
The creeping tyranny of our government is not the result of a faulty Constitution. A debauched people are responsible.
THIS, is Patrick Henry:
"That government is no more than a choice among evils, is acknowledged by the most intelligent among mankind, and has been a standing maxim for ages. If it be demonstrated that the adoption of the new plan is a little or a trifling evil, then, sir, I acknowledge that adoption ought to follow; but, sir, if this be a truth, that its adoption may entail misery on the free people of this country, I then insist that rejection ought to follow."
Patrick Henry, June 7th, 1788
Thanks for taking the bait.
Do you disagree with the statement made by Madison at the Virginia ratifying convention?
As for responding to your degrading posts against our framers, I will continue to do so.
That checks and balances offer no real security? No! I agree with it! That's what makes Madison such a muddle. It's like he had the truth staring him in the face, but couldn't see it. He was very confused. On the one hand, he designs a national, consolidated government and believes that the checks and balances with the separate departments will provide security from tyranny. On the other hand, he doesn't.
As Patrick Henry said:
But now, Sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country to a powerful and mighty empire: If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your Government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together: Such a Government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism: There will be no checks, no real balances, in this Government: What can avail your specious imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances?
The solution, of course, was to reject the plan, and go back to doing what the convention was actually tasked to do---amend the articles of confederation. But the Constitutional Convention was a revolution in its own right. Madison, imo, was a dupe.
Every time I criticize, you complain that it's ad hominem, but none of it is. I literally think he was duped, and had a blind spot that is impossible to fathom. I don't say the same thing about Hamilton--he KNEW what he was after.
Madison, otoh, seems dumbfounded when things transpired just as the skeptics had warned. As P. Henry pointed out, governments are necessary evils. The solution, then, is to have as little of it as possible. The Constitution went in the other direction altogether, and we're paying for it.
I reject your characterization of Alexander Hamilton.
I reject your characterization of Thomas Jefferson.
I reject your degradation of the 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments.
I reject your degradation of our Beloved Constitution.
I will oppose your nonsense at every post. Count on it.
Of course you do. And of course you will.
You're missing a a couple.
The 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Vague, vague, vague! "respecting an establishment of religion."
Second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"--thanks for mucking up the waters with superfluous, unnecessary qualification/justification. If the right to bear arms is absolute, then for crying out loud why not say so? Why justify it with this talk of militias and security of a free state--obviously leads to misconstruction.
So yeah, other than Amendment 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10, the Bill of Rights is pretty solid, lol.
Seems pretty clear to me. It's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." And the Constitution makes very clear who "the people" are. For instance, "the people" elect the president and their representatives.
Some say that the 2nd amendment's referral to a "Militia" means that only the military has a right to bear arms that cannot be infringed. But to come to that conclusion, you must equate the "Militia" with "the people."
Clearly it is not the military alone who elects the president or our representatives; "the people" are the citizens of the U.S.
And if the founders really meant that only the military, and not the citizens, have a right to bear arms, then that would be very silly. Were the Founders afraid the Congress might one day prohibit the army from bearing arms? What country ever made it illegal for its armed forces to bear arms?
You really have to ignore the obvious to claim that the 2nd amendment is vague, IMO.
Too Bad PA dont have one of those units.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.