Call It Texit Instead Of Calling It Secession

Flanders

Verified User
Neither name denotes a bad idea:


Note that Texas’ state flag can easily become a national flag:


Lone-Star-Flag.jpg


https://mentalitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Lone-Star-Flag.jpg

My hat’s off to Rep. Kyle Biedermann for detailing the process that deters talk of civil war. Great Britain did not have a civil war because the British people left the European Union, nor will the American people have another Civil War if Texas leaves the U.S. incrementally.


Lawmakers in Texas say they are considering pursuing a Brexit-like movement as an alternative to living under what they see as rising Democratic socialism,

NOTE: Socialists/Communists took more than a century to implement their dirty business incrementally. Five or so years for Texas to separate from the parasite states legally is the way to go.

and they say lawmakers in other states have shown a similar interest.

“This is not about war, this is not about actually seceding from the United States,” state Rep. Kyle Biedermann (R) told Newsmax TV’s Chris Salcedo on Monday after praising Americans from around the country for “standing up” and expressing themselves following the election.

“This is about the beginning of a process, an act, just like Brexit,” he continued, referencing Great Britain’s separation from the European Union.

“Brexit was a vote of the people and then five years of a process” to gradually separate, Biedermann continued.

The Texas lawmaker suggested that he and others are already working on “legislation” that would put the question to voters of whether they wanted to remain within the U.S., as British citizens voted 52-48 percent in June 2016 to leave the EU.

The bill “is the beginning of the process,” he said. “Do we want to have the right to be an independent state? After that question is answered ‘yes,’ then that process begins.”

Biedermann said that a committee would then be established by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s office, as well as members of the state’s legislature, “and we will address all of the things that it would take to be an independent nation, an independent state, a Republic of Texas.”

During a two-year period, the committee will also hear from Texas residents who “will be able to make their grievances heard, and we will determine whether it’s feasible for us to leave the union.”

Biedermann went on to suggest that prior “research” regarding a potential ‘Texit’ indicates that most residents would support it. He also agreed with Salcedo that the state would negotiate with U.S. officials regarding military bases and other federal installations in Texas.

The Texas Republican acknowledged that while Texas has long been a part of the United States — though it briefly seceded and became part of the Confederacy in 1860 — it, like Britain, was its own nation before agreeing to become part of the union.

He then suggested that the state’s constitution provides an avenue for citizens to choose to become independent again, though several experts on the U.S. Constitution disagree.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1869 in a case, ironically enough, involving the Lone Star State, that secession was unconstitutional. In Texas v. White, the court ruled the U.S. is “an indestructible union” and that no state is entitled to leave once it joins the union of states.

Nevertheless, Biedermann said other states are showing interest in leaving as well, via an Article V Convention of States similar to the Federal Convention of 1787.

“We’ve been getting so many positive responses from other states, so other states will want to join what we’re doing,” he told Salcedo. “The majority of states are not happy with the federal government.”

He went to note, however, that Texas is different than those other states because it is essentially self-sufficient.

In addition to land in Texas being “95 percent privately owned,” the state has its own power grid and its own gold repository.

“We have so many things that other states don’t have, but Texas can lead and these states can join with us,” said Biedermann.


TEXIT? Texas lawmakers consider Brexit-like move in wake of socialism trend: ‘This is not about war’
January 12, 2021
Jon Dougherty

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/0...ocialism-trend-this-is-not-about-war-1015438/

Finally, every American in the other 49 states must ask themselves one question —— Do I want to take up arms and force Texans to live under Communism? Make no mistake with your answer. Texit is the difference between individual freedoms and Communism.
 
My hat’s off to Rep. Kyle Biedermann for detailing the process that deters talk of civil war. Great Britain did not have a civil war because the British people left the European Union, nor will the American people have another Civil War if Texas leaves the U.S. incrementally.

Definition will decide how the issue of secession is debated. Frankly, I believe this should be the definition:

. . . every American in the other 49 states must ask themselves one question —— Do I want to take up arms and force Texans to live under Communism? Make no mistake with your answer. Texit is the difference between individual freedoms and Communism.

The Democrat Party is so despised by a majority of today’s Americans the entire caboodle of Socialism’s true believers had to steal the election in order to force Communism’s core principles on the nation. They preferred more time to achieve their objective incrementally. More than a century was not enough time:


Beginning in the early 1900s the New World Order crowd began taking incremental steps to abolish the U.S. Constitution. They, and their descendants, well-knew that eliminating national sovereignty was inevitable.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...nto-A-Global-Government&p=4586500#post4586500

The very mention of freedom-loving states becoming sovereign nations panicked Democrats. Socialism/Communism policies leave Democrats no choice —— bet everything on one throw of the dice. In simple terms —— incrementalism has become the Democrat Party’s enemy.

Sad to say, William Sullivan posting on the American Thinker believes secession will end in a bloody civil war:


Many conservatives have talked recently about the need for a “national divorce” due to irreconcilable differences with the progressive left. We should be clear about what we’re talking about, though, when we suggest the prospect of a “national divorce.”

We are talking about secession. And secession, in America, is anything but a civil or amicable process, and it’s useless to imagine it would be otherwise.

It’s only truly been attempted once, after all, and it led to the bloodiest war in our history.

Certainly, there are practical differences between secession and civil war. But in America, these are distinctions without meaning, because with secession comes “civil war,” if one chooses, as we have, to characterize the American conflict of 1861-1865 that way.

Perspective matters when it comes to defining these circumstances. The American colonials sought independence in 1776, for example, and would have gladly done so peacefully. In their eyes, the cause for independence from Britain was a righteous assertion of a natural right, and their war was a defensive one. In the eyes of the British, however, the colonials were treasonous rebels to be subjugated with ruthless force.

Such was the state of opinions in 1861, in a remarkably similar set of circumstances. However, there was a difference. In 1861, the seceding states believed not only that their cause was righteous, but that they had asserted not only a natural right but the legal right to achieve independence via legislative self-determination.

And they certainly sought a peaceful separation. As Jefferson Davis openly declared, the newly formed Confederate States of America in 1861 sought “no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were formerly confederated; all we ask is to be let alone.”

Neither the declaration of the desire for a peaceful separation nor this presumed legal right to legislative self-determination by the seceding states made any difference, as we know. The attempt was militarily thwarted with ruthless force by the Union armies in order to subjugate the treasonous rebels who sought independence.

Here is what’s most important for us to know today. There was not war in 1861 because the seceding states desired war, or, contrary to popular fiction, because of the moral crime of their having practiced slavery. There was war because there was a bedrock, nation-defining question around the legitimacy of state secession that had yet to be answered.

That answer to that question was finally settled in 1865.

It would certainly be convenient if we could accomplish an amicable “national divorce,” but that would require, at the very least, a nationally understood belief that states are willing participants in voluntary union of American states. Unfortunately, progressives certainly don’t believe that, and neither do most conservatives.

Herein lies the conflict of visions that once led us from the potential for peaceable secession of the states to violent reunification of a nation through open war in 1861.

The question of whether our republic is a voluntary or perpetual union has long been a subject of debate. In the Articles of Confederation which preceded the Constitution, the provisions therein were stipulated to be “inviolably observed by every state, and the Union shall be perpetual.”

Inconvenient for those arguing in favor of the legal legitimacy of a perpetual union, however, is that the musings of Articles of Confederation are abrogated by the Constitution, and the latter is entirely silent on the matter of secession. Any who have given even mild study to the diligence and care with which the Constitution explicitly enumerates the powers of the federal government should have difficulty explaining the absence of an explicitly defined federal mandate to militarily enforce a “perpetual union” if the Framers’ intention was to establish one.

This leaves arguers in favor of our nation’s design as a perpetual union reliant on pure postulation. Abraham Lincoln was one who unconvincingly argued in his First Inaugural Address that:


I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its own organic law for its own termination.


Here, we see Lincoln, one of the most gifted orators and debaters in American history, is eliding the real point. He freely concedes that the Constitution may not “express” that the Union is perpetual, but that in the penumbra, one might say, of all foundational law of “national governments” is the implied suggestion that the government is designed to exist in perpetuity. After all, he suggests, if national governments were not meant to perpetually exist, then they would have surely scribed into law a mechanism to destroy themselves.

The suggestion that a righteous mandate to forcibly maintain a perpetual union on the strength of “implied” rather than “expressed” power of the government is extraordinarily weak justification for his treating the prospect of secession as “rebellion.”

Furthermore, secession is not tantamount to “termination” of government. If two states secede from the Union, for example, the government would not cease to exist or be “terminated” -- it would just exist with fewer states, just as the addition of two states to the Union does not alter the Union’s state of existence, but only means that its form in that it will now be composed of two more states.

There’s also an element of hypocrisy here that cuts against the argument Lincoln made in 1861. He had spoken very favorably of the Texian revolution against the national government of Mexico, which must have also been, according to his logic in 1861, designedly “perpetual” in nature:


Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable -- a most sacred right -- a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world…


Interestingly, the reason that Lincoln held this view in 1848 leads us to the most important argument in favor of the United States having been formed as a voluntary Union of states, rather than a perpetual one. And that is the Declaration of Independence.

Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration was not nullified by the Constitution. It does not stand as a substitute for the Constitution, but as the reason for its very existence. In short, the Constitution is the “how” of the United States, and the Declaration is the “why.”

It was from this fount that Lincoln undoubtedly drew in 1848, as is evident by the language. Jefferson wrote in 1776:


[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object 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.


What does any of this mean today?

It means that state secession is, indeed convincingly, entirely consistent with the foundational principles of our republic. But that simple truth no longer matters, because the question as to whether we are a voluntary union (thereby allowing for civil separation) or perpetual one (thereby requiring ruthless force to maintain) has been precedentially settled through violence. We are taught in our schools that the ruthless and forcible preservation of that union is righteous and well within the powers of the federal government. And the vast majority of Americans, left and right, simply accept all of this as fact.

Couple with this the fact that states wishing to secede would necessarily be deficient in federal power, and we should have every reason to believe that the powerful federal government would see any effort by a subordinate state to leave the United States as an act of rebellion.

I maintain that secession and civil war don’t appear to be on the immediate horizon, given that the balance of power in government is such that neither side is hopeless to express its own regional autonomy, to some extent, or to exercise representative power at the federal level. But the simple fact is that any talk of a civil or amicable national divorce is nothing but a fantasy -- and not a very helpful one, at that.


October 15, 2021
Why a ‘National Divorce’ Cannot Be Civil, but Would Inevitably Mean Civil War
By William Sullivan

https://www.americanthinker.com/art...ivil_but_would_inevitably_mean_civil_war.html

QUESTION: Who benefits the most from the Democrat Party’s tyranny?

ANSWER: The Parasite Class, the United Nations, and Americans enemies.

QUESTION: Who benefits the least from U.S. states becoming sovereign nations?

ANSWER: The Parasite Class, the United Nations, and Americans enemies.

Finally, every sovereign nation after secession will come together and defend this country against foreign enemies in the event of a war. Former Americans in those nine or ten Communist sates will have to fight against this country’s enemies as a matter of self-preservation. That was not true in WWII :


Had Hitler never double-crossed Stalin the Soviet and American Communists would have remained neutral for the duration.

Prior to “Operation Barbarossa” FDR’s Communists wanted no part of a European war fought against Soviet Communism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...mmunist-Under-Every-Bed&p=4326123#post4326123
 
Last edited:
Please go.
Take the rest of blood red America with you.
Figure out how to exist without blue state tax money.

I wish you the best.
With you having no input in my laws and tax codes, I have no problem with or interest in you.
 
Please go.
Take the rest of blood red America with you.
Figure out how to exist without blue state tax money.

I wish you the best.
With you having no input in my laws and tax codes, I have no problem with or interest in you.

you're pretty ignorant about the value to the nation that texas provides, aren't you?
 
Figure out how to exist without blue state tax money.

To NiftyNiblick: That is easy. Just repeal the XVI Amendment and return to the country that made free Americans build the greatest nation the world had ever seen.

You should be trying to figure out where parasites will get the wealth free Americans create.
 
Back
Top