Skip to comments.Will White House be forced to respond to Texas secession petition?
Posted on 11/13/2012 11:37:37 AM PST by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
“Will White House be forced to respond to Texas secession petition?”
No. He won’t—he’s the dear leader. He’ll do anything he wants.
If he does respond, it will probably be something like “Sorry ‘bout your luck, Bub” or he’ll just blow it off completely and go play golf. He’s god, remember? And is only accountable to himself.
I’ve read Texas v. White. I’m aware of the legalities surrounding secession. I wasn’t talking about that. Secession is likely impossible without bloodshed — even if it were legal. It took blood in 1776. It took blood in 1836. The attempt took blood in the 1860s. And ... we’ve come a long way since the weapons of the 1770s, 1830s or 1860s. A war for Texas independence is likely one we can’t win. We’re outgunned.
Like I said, I’m not for secession ... but I’m sensitive to the accusation that those that are are necessarily less “patriotic” than those who oppose it. They are wrong. But, they are wrong for the right reasons.
RE: Besides, what nation in its right mind would bloodily suppress a secessionist movement in the age of instant news.
Yep, I was just thinking about that... will the other 49 states form a military alliance to forcibly tell Texas — “You cannot secede or we’ll kill you like the North did to the South during Lincoln’s time”?
Not sure if this can happen. In fact, if any, I’d say the Red States would be sympathetic to Texas and I’d probably think that there are more Red State Soldiers than Blue State Soldiers.
“People who participate in this are not showing patriotism.”
Then technically neither did George Washington Thomas Jefferson or the people at Washington On The Brazos.
Obama will just ignore it like he does everything else and if that doesn’t work he will make jokes ,sore loser jokes and then invent something phrase like Birther
Please see post 33 (especially the part about risking bloodshed in an age of instant news broadcasting—and instant video). Governments tend to be squeamish about that sort of bad publicity.
I wouldn't bet my 401(k) on that one.
The cold civil war has already started. It won’t take much at this point for it get hot. God help us.
True dat, especially so in the case of career NCOs. And I recall hearing someplace that the Northeastern (i.e. liberal) states haven’t met their recruitment quotas in years. Without the south (and I include WV, KY and MO as the south), mountain west and much of the midwest, we’d have hardly any active-duty military at all.
You’re right, it’s just kook people.
Why is the United States as powerful as it is? In part, it’s this powerful because there are 311 million people in it.
How much power do you expect the ‘break-away’ nation to have, with 50 million in it? It will have no military, no Navy, no Airforce, no standing army...
Gosh, I can’t wait to be voiceless on the world stage.
Can you imagine what respect we would get at any international gathering? We would be completely ignored.
In 1964 Goldwater was trounced in all but one state. Conservatism was not defeated. In 1972 the Republican party won a massive victory.
Buck up folks. Obama is self-destructing before our very eyes.
This Benghazi/Petraeus scandal is going to come very close to taking him down.
I think you underestimate the gullibility of the average Obama voter or blue state dufus.
Characterize it as “putting down a rebellion”, and Obama voters will lap it up. Especially if you say it is a “racist” rebellion ... maybe equate it with the Confederacy, or a “militia”, or some white supremacist movement.
I’ve seen some really vicious stuff from the left lately. Genuine seething hatred for conservatives, Republicans, etc. I don’t think it’d take much of a push to convince them that an armed insurrection in Texas must be met with force.
Sure but who’d do the shooting? Most Obama voters don’t know a butt from a barrel—except gangbangers, and what what kind of disciplined militia would they be?
The Southern Confederacy next invaded Manassas (21 July 1861) forty miles west of Washington. (1st. battle of Bull Run) - therefore the South was the agressor in that it invaded the North,it became a war between the states; The Union vs The Confederacy who wanted to secede from the Union.
So I suggest you call the war the proper name "The War Of Secession". Or maybe to reverse the South's name - the Union called it "The War Of Southern Rebellion" or in your term "The war Of Southern Agression".
Of course not. If there's one thing we've come to expect over the last 4 years, it's that the Obama regime has no respect whatsoever for any law, except their own.
What if Texans withheld federal income tax? What could the feds do?
Would Texas lose vital government services? /snort
Walter Williams on the subject:
Basically, Lincoln decided the issue of secession by killing some 600,000 americans. Then there’s this from Williams article,
Americans celebrate Abraham Lincolns Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, It is poetry not logic; beauty, not sense. Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth. Mencken says: It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.
1. Who cares about the “world stage.” We’re supposed to be a republic, not an empire.
2. “How much power do you expect the break-away nation to have, with 50 million in it? It will have no military, no Navy, no Airforce, no standing army...” Without the red staes, there’d be no military. And 50 million people is still a respectable population. It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog. The military histories of Israel and Vietnam, for example, prove this adage to be true.
3. “In 1964 Goldwater was trounced in all but one state. Conservatism was not defeated. In 1972 the Republican party won a massive victory.” Different demographic back then.
4. “This Benghazi/Petraeus scandal is going to come very close to taking him down.”
Libs said that about Iran-Contra. Our guys said that about Monica-gate. Both Presidents stayed on.
In 1964 the population of the US was 88.2% European ancestry and the "war on poverty" that gave us a welfare society had not yet begun. The world has changed a bit since then.
Is it a scream if you never open your mouth???
I am seeing lots of petitions, and receiving requests to sign lots of petitions. Are the petitions going to change things? In and of themselves, probably not. However, and this is where they have merit -— they are the rumblings of an angry electorate that normally sits quietly on the sidelines, and that is powerful.
The folks on the left are the protestors, the petitioners, the screamers by and large -— they have made themselves heard over and over, and have pushed their way throughout our governmental systems at every level. All the while, the conservatives have muttered to themselves and puttered along under the increasingly heavy burdens of government.
That is why the TEA Party was so surprising and so successful, all things considered -— quiet, peaceful, conservative Americans were finally angry enough to take to the streets. People who had taken little notice of politics were suddenly shocked into the realization that “while they were sleeping” things had gone far, far awry. With little or no political experience and no established “party” network, these loose bands of Patriots set about to correct the course of the nation. It has been and will be a long, grueling uphill battle.
Angry and determined conservatives are NOT “sunshine patriots” or “shrinking from the service of [our] country” -— they [we] are honest, decent, law abiding people that are looking for avenues to get their voices heard within a system structured to ignore them. Heaven forbid that they are unable to find the path they seek and are forced, as a last resort, to conflict.