Quotes of the day

posted at 9:30 pm on April 19, 2009 by Allahpundit

“The new nation would have to raise an Army and a Navy and an Air Force from scratch, of course. For the first few years, if it didn’t want to be gobbled up by Mexico or intimidated by the hugely irritated United States to the north, there would probably have to be confiscatory taxation, and a draft of a million or so healthy men and women over 18, just to guard its thousands of miles of borders. The drug violence and corruption in Mexico would quickly move north and permeate the new nation. Loyal Americans would no doubt launch a resistance movement. Under such conditions, in this militaristic state, we can assume that certain ‘adjustments’ would be made in civil liberties.

So, high taxes and repressive government. Texas could play its hand like Cuba, and become a satellite of China or Russia, and save money on defense that way, but that sort of defeats the purpose of independence, no? Isn’t escaping ‘socialism’ the whole point?”

***
“Consider the sort of nation Texas would become: bellicose, oil-rich, brutal — and with terrifying chemical and nuclear weapons stockpiles controlled by a dangerously irrational religious fanatic. By the political logic of Texas conservatives, that’s a pretty good formula for U.S. military action.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Notice the lefties are all for war and killing innocents as long as they are Americans dying.

ronsfi on April 20, 2009 at 12:02 AM

This would explain why they love Lincoln and the War of Northern Aggression.

The Dean on April 20, 2009 at 2:24 AM

This would explain why they love Lincoln and the War of Northern Aggression.

The Dean on April 20, 2009 at 2:24 AM

Amen, this is my biggest frustration with Mark Levin. He practically worships that tyrant Lincoln.

Tim Burton on April 20, 2009 at 2:26 AM

At least wait until democratic means have been exhausted.

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2009 at 2:16 AM

It’s fun to consider the possibility of a new conservative nation on the North American continent where we could escape to if so inclined, but I don’t think anybody has seriously implied that this might happen next week. This conversation is purely hypothetical and I think it’s implied that the only chance of it occurring is if the USA were already deep in the throws of transforming into the USSA.

All this talk of civil war is a tad premature.

Civil war doesn’t have to spring from secession, and I think in the modern world it’s highly unlikely. If it does happen, Texas will be party representing freedom and liberty this time, not the north, hence it will be impossible for Obama to play the role of Lincoln.

Lincoln will be somebody on the Texas side.

FloatingRock on April 20, 2009 at 2:33 AM

Will some Blacks ever get over slavery, which ended way before they were born?

Will some Southern Whites ever get over “‘The War of Northern Aggression”, which ended way before they were born?

Give it up and move on.

MB4 on April 20, 2009 at 2:35 AM

What can I do to help make this happen?

benny shakar on April 20, 2009 at 2:24 AM

It’s unlikely you’ll accomplish much from your parents basement and I seriously doubt they’d loan you any more money for this purpose.

FloatingRock on April 20, 2009 at 2:36 AM

3)Sanctions/boycott
4)Apologize/appease

FloatingRock on April 20, 2009 at 2:16 AM

I think both fit under 1)Do nothing since
A)UN<Pansies. Some member nations of the UN might go along, but there’s always a black market.

That and Texas might consider it an act of war. Especially if sanctions escalate into a blockade.

B)Apologies<words<actions. ’nuff said.

As for Lincoln, the situation before the Civil War was that the South was practically trying to enforce the will of the minority upon the majority. Southern ‘activists’ had done much to turn Kansas into a war zone killing those who would vote against slavery in those elections (you could call them terrorists. They fit the bill).

But I do think it could’ve been avoided. Not sure how.

Chaz706 on April 20, 2009 at 2:36 AM

And since we’re shooting in the wind, here’s my 2 cents: If Texas Did secede, Obama would have 2 options:
1)Do nothing.
2)Take military Action.

3)Sanctions/boycott
4)Apologize/appease

FloatingRock on April 20, 2009 at 2:16 AM

Don’t forget number Five, pay off the US debt to China by deeding it every State that seceded.

I’ve been pondering what the US would do if we defaulted on our massive debt due to Obama’s depression, or if China simply sought to call it’s debt and we, of course, could not pay up. The only response the US could make would be to negotiate for resources which they lack and territory they desire. We happen to have lots of petroleum that we refuse to touch, and China desperately needs that. We have uranium we refuse to mine and China needs that. They also have a massive gender imbalance to address, as well as over population concerns.

I’ve been figuring that they would end up with the Dakotas for the Bakken formation oil and a sparsely populated mountain state or two for the uranium. However, if Texas seceded, bringing red states with her, I wouldn’t put it past Zero to offer the Chinese the lot of them if they helped him suppress all military threats to the remaining US states, and the Chinese could supply the occupation forces.

If you think the Chinese aren’t capable of colonizing for the sake of resources, take a look at Africa, particularly Eastern Congo.

If you think the Chinese have no military interest in our hemisphere, take a look at who controls the Panama Canal and has been practicing ways to cheaply neutralize our military’s technological advantages.

If you think Zero won’t sell our nation to our enemies, you haven’t been paying attention, he already has.

Maquis on April 20, 2009 at 2:38 AM

This would explain why they love Lincoln and the War of Northern Aggression.

The Dean on April 20, 2009 at 2:24 AM

-1

FloatingRock on April 20, 2009 at 2:41 AM

For a short time we lived quietly. But this could not last. White men had found gold in the mountains around the land of winding water. My father was the first to see through the schemes of the white man. It makes my heart sick when I remember all the good words and all the broken promises.

Hinmahtooyahlatkek on April 20, 2009 at 2:43 AM

Maquis on April 20, 2009 at 2:38 AM

Crap.

Haven’t thought about that.

And no that doesn’t sound like a good thing at all. This is starting to leave the ‘Federalist Apocalypse’ territory and going straight into ‘Gog and Magog’ territory. Seriously, it’s that scary.

If Zero DID do that (and I’m calling him Zero from now on. I’ll take that from you if you don’t mind), not only would he galvanize the red states, but would probably loose a good many Blue staters (if not a few States) as well. Heck, Canada might join in just because they don’t want the barbarians marching around their borders, or through their nation.

Reprocussions world wide for freedom loving people sounds just as grim. Worse especially in Europe and Great Britain (we’d basically have to say ‘you’re on your own’ if we haven’t already). They’d see this and crap their pants, and then prepare for Armageddon.

But seriously, that is NOT good at all.

Chaz706 on April 20, 2009 at 2:48 AM

Speaking of which, do you know anything concerning the vision of George Washington?

And yes, he had a vision. It’s recorded in the Library of Congress.

But just in case, I provided the link.

Chaz706 on April 20, 2009 at 2:51 AM

A)UN<Pansies. Some member nations of the UN might go along, but there’s always a black market.

Chaz706 on April 20, 2009 at 2:36 AM

The UN/NATO might go along with sanctions at first but I think the USSA’s economy would crash if Texas seceded and Texas’ would boom, relatively speaking. If so, most nations of the world would invariably recognize their own self interests and normalize relations with Texas.

FloatingRock on April 20, 2009 at 2:51 AM

It’s fun to consider the possibility of a new conservative nation on the North American continent where we could escape to if so inclined, but I don’t think anybody has seriously implied that this might happen next week. This conversation is purely hypothetical and I think it’s implied that the only chance of it occurring is if the USA were already deep in the throws of transforming into the USSA.

I hear you, it’s just that some of what I’ve read about what it would take to hypothetically justify something like that has been disturbingly hair-triggered.

RightOFLeft on April 20, 2009 at 2:52 AM

You know,

Money becomes the root of all…. man made disasters.

How do you fight your way out of a Trillion dollar debt?

Kini on April 20, 2009 at 2:52 AM

How do you fight your way out of a Trillion dollar debt?

Kini on April 20, 2009 at 2:52 AM

The only way you can: repudiate it… by force if need be.

The people didn’t cause this debt, and one day the people will repudiate it.

Chaz706 on April 20, 2009 at 2:55 AM

We gave up some of our country to the white men, thinking that then we could have peace. We were mistaken. The white man would not let us alone. We soon found that the white men were growing rich very fast, and were greedy. Some of you think an Indian is like a wild animal. This is a great mistake. I only ask of the government to be treated as all other men are treated. Treat all men alike. Give them the same law. Give them an even chance to live and grow.

Hinmahtooyahlatkek on April 20, 2009 at 2:58 AM

You know, I have been reading and analyzing about a Texas secessation from up here in the largest state, and there is a strong movement for it even up here. In fact, we have an offical state party whose goal is to take Alaska out of the union and become its own state. I don’t if Alaska would be first to go, but it would be a close second. What I believe see happen and at the rate things are going could definitely happen. 1, the south rises again, with basically from TN south and the Carolinas to Texas form a union, including OK. OH, MI, parts of PA, IN, KY, WV, and maybe VA(although they are very much affected by DC now days)IL (minus chicago), and MO form another union. MT, WY, CO(although it is a little blue these days), the Dakotas, MN, WI, UT, and NV form another. WA and ID do some kind of deal with Canada. ME does the same thing with Canada. AZ and NM may join in with Texas. HI and AK gain independance. And I figure we just are the libs are congregated in CA and the rest of the Northeast.

And as far the military starting from scratch, possesion is 9/10 of the law.

All this is a scenario that could happen, but does not need to if we can stop obama.

ConservativePartyNow on April 20, 2009 at 3:04 AM

The people didn’t cause this debt, and one day the people will repudiate it.

Chaz706 on April 20, 2009 at 2:55 AM

That’s a great point. We, those that played by the rules, now are paying for others mortgages and GM car loans.

Kini on April 20, 2009 at 3:11 AM

ConservativePartyNow on April 20, 2009 at 3:04 AM

Deals with Canada? I like our (English) neighbors to the North; however, I’m not sure I could stomach losing some of my current constitutional rights…

Upstater85 on April 20, 2009 at 3:24 AM

Civil war doesn’t have to spring from secession, and I think in the modern world it’s highly unlikely. If it does happen, Texas will be party representing freedom and liberty this time, not the north, hence it will be impossible for Obama to play the role of Lincoln.

Lincoln will be somebody on the Texas side.

FloatingRock on April 20, 2009 at 2:33 AM

Lincoln wasn’t fighting for freeing the slaves. He was fighting to be a tyrant over people.

If Lincoln was fighting for the slaves, then why in his First Inaugural Speech refuse to reject the Corwin Amendment and even said he would accept it if the South Returned.

Do you know what the Corwin Amendment did? It made Slavery eternal.

The South refused to return, even with that offer of eternal slavery.

Then again, most Southerners didn’t mind freeing the slaves, they just didn’t want it to harm them (including black slave owners) or blacks.

Before Nat Turner’s Rebellion, there were about 130 anti-slavery societies. Of them, all but about 30 were in the South.

The South was not opposed to ending slavery. In fact Jefferson said many times that he believed in slavery was allowed to expand into territories that it was uneconomical, it would put pressure on the South to Free their slaves.

Every Christian Society freed their slaves without bloodshed, the same could be assumed to have happened in the South if just give a little more time.

The big issue was that around 80% of the Federal budgets came from tariffs from the South’s exporting of cotton. That is why Lincoln offered to let them go as long as they continued to pay the tariffs. The South offered to pay their share of the debt as part of the agreement to allow them to secede peacefully.

Tim Burton on April 20, 2009 at 3:28 AM

Speaking of which, do you know anything concerning the vision of George Washington?

And yes, he had a vision. It’s recorded in the Library of Congress.

But just in case, I provided the link.

Chaz706 on April 20, 2009 at 2:51 AM

People using the Internet should know better by now.

Shy Guy on April 20, 2009 at 3:28 AM

That’s a great point. We, those that played by the rules, now are paying for others mortgages and GM car loans.

Kini on April 20, 2009 at 3:11 AM

Hey, if you don’t like it, vote twice next time. Dig up your dead relatives and bring them to the voting booths. /sarc

On a serious note, what’s most disturbing about GM is that we gave them money so that they could, uh, declare bankruptcy… The best part is that big government “economists” say that “Of course GM was going to go bankrupt, but we still needed to do something back then to help them so that it wouldn’t be so drastic…” Essentially, this means that they lied to us knowing that GM wasn’t fixable … or they didn’t lie and they just are dumb but in charge.

Upstater85 on April 20, 2009 at 3:29 AM

This is a scenario that in all likelyhood would never happen, and you liberal trolls can stop foaming over the mouth at the prospect.

Most of what you see here are people simply wondering what the ramifications of this are. Of course, the liberal reaction is to declare war. You sure are free with military action when it’s against Texans… where were you when the President needed support for the surge (which worked despite your infantile efforts against it) in Iraq?

ManInBlack on April 20, 2009 at 3:34 AM

Essentially, this means that they lied to us knowing that GM wasn’t fixable … or they didn’t lie and they just are dumb but in charge.

Upstater85 on April 20, 2009 at 3:29 AM

When GM advertises that if you get laid off from work and they will pay your car payments up to 9 payments of $500 dollars.

Dude, that’s my money that Obama gave to them.

It’s both, they are dumb and they lied.

Kini on April 20, 2009 at 3:39 AM

Tim Burton on April 20, 2009 at 3:28 AM

Lincoln wasn’t fighting for freeing the slaves. He was fighting to be a tyrant over people.

Tyrant? I don’t know, but I do agree he was no neo-liberal, and, yes, Slavery wasn’t the real reason for the Civil War…

Then again, most Southerners didn’t mind freeing the slaves, they just didn’t want it to harm them (including black slave owners) or blacks.

Really? You’d just give up all of your processions? How would it have “harmed” them? Britain had no problem freeing their slaves much earlier…

The South was not opposed to ending slavery. In fact Jefferson said many times that he believed in slavery was allowed to expand into territories that it was uneconomical, it would put pressure on the South to Free their slaves.

First, Jefferson doesn’t speak for the South. Secondly, if he realized the economical pitfalls that Slavery brought, why did he continue holding slaves? Further, there were many poor Southerners with no slaves, but they had no political voice.

Every Christian Society freed their slaves without bloodshed, the same could be assumed to have happened in the South if just give a little more time.

Interesting point that I’ve heard before, but then why did the “Christian South” get into Slavery in the first place? Again, there were many poor Christian Southerners that didn’t own slaves and there were some greedy plantation owners that had a lot of clout…

Upstater85 on April 20, 2009 at 3:40 AM

Why not just take back the United States of America from the statists…………..

…………. and forgo the drama?

Seven Percent Solution on April 20, 2009 at 3:40 AM

Tim Burton on April 20, 2009 at 3:28 AM

Thank you, Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul.

Shy Guy on April 20, 2009 at 3:41 AM

When GM advertises that if you get laid off from work and they will pay your car payments up to 9 payments of $500 dollars.

LINK

That’s our money.

Independence Party 7/4/2009

Kini on April 20, 2009 at 3:42 AM

It’s both, they are dumb and they lied.

Kini on April 20, 2009 at 3:39 AM

That about sums it up. Drop Hope and Change. This could be the New Obama campaign slogan.

Upstater85 on April 20, 2009 at 3:42 AM

processions

Really? I meant possessions.

Upstater85 on April 20, 2009 at 3:45 AM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/IMG_9992.jpg

Kini on April 20, 2009 at 3:47 AM

Nice…

Upstater85 on April 20, 2009 at 3:48 AM

Read State of Disobedience, a fictional account of near-future secession by Texas to counter a power-hungry Federal Government:

http://www.amazon.com/State-Disobedience-Tom-Kratman/dp/0743499204

The Fed moves to retake Texas, which maneuvers its National Guard to threaten but deny battle to the US military, trying to avoid a real shooting match, while waging a propaganda war to move the US public (including US military) strongly against the Federal governments actions. When the Fed over reaches, not even the “Party” base can tolerate the president’s actions and the president is impeached, policies thoroughly discredited and public outrage leads to a backlash against government power. Texas abandons secession, etc. Interesting read.

EasyEight on April 20, 2009 at 3:53 AM

I live in Texas, so I could be biased in this affair, but I wonder how in the world the U.S.A. could fight to keep in citizenry who voted peacefully to secede in this day and age (without the great reason of freeing the slaves that they had 150 years ago) when they have berated so many other countries within the last few decades for forcibly trying to keep in citizenry who voted peacefully to secede in the very same manner.

Seriously.

Theophile on April 20, 2009 at 4:04 AM

MB4 on April 20, 2009 at 2:35 AM

Just as soon as atheists get over the Inquisition and the Crusades, which ended way before they were born.

TMK on April 20, 2009 at 5:46 AM

For a short time we lived quietly. But this could not last. White men had found gold in the mountains around the land of winding water. My father was the first to see through the schemes of the white man. It makes my heart sick when I remember all the good words and all the broken promises.

Hinmahtooyahlatkek on April 20, 2009 at 2:43 AM

Indian casinos.

You have your revenge.

RobertInLexington on April 20, 2009 at 6:24 AM

How long will the Texas majority be content to be ruled by a minority of idiotic right-wing rednecks who are ruining their economy and forfeiting their liberties and giving up the blessings of belonging to the greatest and richest nation, and brightest beacon of freedom, in the world?

Glad to see you quote an unbiased source, AP. It’s impossible to know what Texas would look like as a nation. If Texas stays in the Union, we’ll never know how good or bad it could have been.

bigbeas on April 20, 2009 at 6:25 AM

So, The Palestinians can kill and murder and terrorize so that they can have a sovereign state, but we Texans can’t peacefully vote and leave the union?

I dare any liberal to justify those two diametrically opposed positions.

Just consider it a divorce from the Union (since you liberals are so fond of no fault divorces).

Theophile on April 20, 2009 at 6:28 AM

This whole topic is so ridiculous. For as long as Texas has been in a state, there have been the Texas firsters etc. It is the same with Alaska and Hawaii…in fact much more so with Hawaii.

This is just something else for liberals to bash conservatives with in their never ending campaign to make anyone right of center {or maybe even center} look strange, deranged, waco or out of control. Well all I can say is look whose talking.

Terrye on April 20, 2009 at 6:37 AM

I grew up in Oklahoma, and I have a lot of relatives living in Texaas to this day and they consider themselves Americans..first, last and always.

Terrye on April 20, 2009 at 6:39 AM

You all miss the point. That a state can get fed up with US policies and take steps to focus back on their rights that the founders of this country intended them to have.
There are a lot simpler things that can be done then Secede. I believe that the best thing for them to do is to establish a state law mandating that all federal tax revenue be sent to the State for forwarding on to the Federal Government. The Texas will be in a position of strength when negotiating Federalism with Washington.
For those morons who can’t have a legitimate discussion on this blog based on logic and reasoning – Find some new location to post your illogical bile and quit wasting everyone’s time.

triumphus on April 20, 2009 at 6:48 AM

Secession is a stupid idea, especially when Texas has the unique right to split into five (5) states.

Adding eight US senators would have a significant impact, without all these complications.

Right_of_Attila on April 20, 2009 at 6:59 AM

Secession is a stupid idea, especially when Texas has the unique right to split into five (5) states.

Adding eight US senators would have a significant impact, without all these complications.

Right_of_Attila on April 20, 2009 at 6:59 AM

I was thinking about that. Dividing it up so it would work to our benefit would be the hard part though becase certain metropolitan areas as well as by the border are very blue.

Daemonocracy on April 20, 2009 at 7:23 AM

So this is what America was like in the 1850′s. Interesting.

Broomy on April 20, 2009 at 8:00 AM

Daemonocracy:

Yeah, like Austin!!!!! I’ll have to move…

mimi1220 on April 20, 2009 at 8:05 AM

Interesting take by Rep. John Culberson on Hardball recently…

http://lonestartimes.com/2009/04/18/rep-john-culberson-on-hardball/

God bless you, John.

golfer1 on April 20, 2009 at 8:10 AM

Interesting take by Rep. John Culberson on Hardball recently…

http://lonestartimes.com/2009/04/18/rep-john-culberson-on-hardball/

God bless you, John.

golfer1 on April 20, 2009 at 8:10 AM

So if texas secedes does that mean they’re out of the big 12 conference?

rollthedice on April 20, 2009 at 8:12 AM

Rollthedice, it could mean that a large number of colleges could lose their best recruiting territory. Oklahoma would have a tough time fielding a team (grin). My dad attended OU, and I remind him of that regularly…

golfer1 on April 20, 2009 at 8:22 AM

It’s unlikely you’ll accomplish much from your parents basement and I seriously doubt they’d loan you any more money for this purpose.

FloatingRock on April 20, 2009 at 2:36 AM

May we at, periodically, use this retort for our resident trolls?
It fits so well…

right2bright on April 20, 2009 at 8:28 AM

Just as soon as atheists get over the Inquisition and the Crusades, which ended way before they were born.

TMK on April 20, 2009 at 5:46 AM

Heh.

maverick muse on April 20, 2009 at 8:34 AM

What will happen when our Constitution becomes some historical artifact in a Washington DC museum? Well folks, that is the direction we’re taking. The lunatics are now running the asylum. Our nation being governed by some world body is slowly becoming a reality.

“Y’all” can try to sweep this reality under the rug and pretend it doesn’t exist if you please. As for me I hope and pray that Rick Perry doesn’t back down or apologize. DD

Darvin Dowdy on April 20, 2009 at 8:38 AM

Look on the bright side: If Texas seceeds then the USSA will finally get the secure wall on its southern border. Only when Obama builds it, it will be to keep his subjects from leaving the USSA to go to Texas rather than to keep illegals from entering the USA.

Who says we can’t learn anything from the Berlin wall experience?

ksm on April 20, 2009 at 8:40 AM

get over “‘The War of Northern Aggression” that ended a long time before you were born

Tell that to those putting words into Gov. Perry’s mouth.

This thread originates from words taken out of context, being woven with strong cross-grained sentiments.

maverick muse on April 20, 2009 at 8:46 AM

Will some Southern Whites ever get over “‘The War of Northern Aggression”, which ended way before they were born?

Give it up and move on.

MB4 on April 20, 2009 at 2:35 AM

I’ll give up that and the anti-Lincoln tirades when the truth is widely acknowledged among the populace.

The Dean on April 20, 2009 at 9:07 AM

I’ll give up that and the anti-Lincoln tirades when the truth is widely acknowledged among the populace.

The Dean on April 20, 2009 at 9:07 AM

Slavery was wrong, the Abolitionists were right. If you want to complain about John Brown, fine, but Lincoln was right.

Besides, it was the South who fired the first shot.

Daemonocracy on April 20, 2009 at 9:20 AM

golfer1 on April 20, 2009 at 8:10 AM

Intermurals / 2:1 deck stacked; Matthews & Powe vs. Culberson.

Powe chose not to identify as anything beyond professor of law, and certainly kept his 10 ft. distance from touching any sentiment.

Matthews hears the roar of over 30% of Texans riled at Federal obesity and abuse of powers, and references the rebuke Texans have to socialism as “whining”. Matthews’ heard his mommy and daddy telling him to STFU and quit his whining so many times, as his personal self defense mechanism, he can’t repress that word, intending by blurting “whine” to reflect the application from himself onto his opponents. All legitimate protests annoy Matthews; that’s HIS problem. We don’t accept responsibility for Matthews’ hang-ups, whether emotional or ideological (he doesn’t distinguish).

Chris Matthews calls Texas a “rural state”. Texans love their big country dearly. But dismissing the huge industrial attractions and urban centers of Texas shows Matthews’ prejudice against Texas. His prejudicial antagonisms against Texas betray his own tunnel vision.

Matthews is the one focusing on one cedar in front of his nose, whining that Culberson, Perry and Texans are dealing with the entire overgrowth of federal Washingtonian scrub, not native to Texas, seeded specifically to choke out the population already rich from respecting our state’s unique origination from our identity’s multiple cultural embrace that has already functioned under SIX FLAGS. Culberson is correct. Texas has no intention to become another neo-France incarnation; we’ve been there, done that. And as truly patriotic Americans, we won’t stand by idly or silently while our Constitutional government is subverted into a Socialist Union by anyone.

John Culberson is a great Texan Statesman! He certainly holds the line.

Thanks, again, Golfer1, for the link.

maverick muse on April 20, 2009 at 9:37 AM

For those morons who can’t have a legitimate discussion on this blog based on logic and reasoning – Find some new location to post your illogical bile and quit wasting everyone’s time.

triumphus on April 20, 2009 at 6:48 AM

Just curious,..to whom are you aiming that broadside? Are you the new hall monitor?

a capella on April 20, 2009 at 9:41 AM

How long will the Texas majority be content to be ruled by a minority of idiotic right-wing rednecks who are ruining their economy and forfeiting their liberties and giving up the blessings of belonging to the greatest and richest nation, and brightest beacon of freedom, in the world?

?
Our economy is doing just fine, thank you. The rest of the U.S., not so good.

Johan Klaus on April 20, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Agree.

Charles Martel on April 20, 2009 at 10:05 AM

I think the government is ‘listening’ more to internal chatter on this topic than on any other before. (Including domestic terrorists)

Be careful.

shick on April 20, 2009 at 10:06 AM

If you thought Obama was lovey dovey with our enemies I hate to see how he would respond to the rise of the south.

shick on April 20, 2009 at 10:08 AM

I was shocked 75% of Texans said no. They love America.

Perry is history.

getalife on April 19, 2009 at 9:35 PM

What is that “getalife” Liberal math, I am from Texas born and raised and I havent heard any where what your quoting as gospel. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesnt something like 90% of the military come from Texas, I am not sure but I have heard that somewere. My point is, Texans are Loyal, and they will come home if there State or Country called them.

Texas Dude on April 20, 2009 at 10:08 AM

It wouldn’t even take a ground invasion. A few US subs in the Gulf of Mexico could level the entire state in a matter of hours with strategically aimed missiles. If that.

JetBoy on April 19, 2009 at 11:00 PM

The American military would bomb Texas into Mexico.

Don’t start none and there will not be none.

getalife on April 19, 2009 at 11:02 PM

Notice the lefties are all for war and killing innocents as long as they are Americans dying.

ronsfi on April 20, 2009 at 12:02 AM

Ummm, ronsfi…Despite what you may thin of someone who actually rooted for John McCain, doesn’t bow t Sarah Palin, and is pro-gay marriage, let me correct you.

I am not a lefty. For the record, my first choice as the next GOP candidate is John Boehner.

And I’m a registered Republican.

JetBoy on April 20, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Slavery ended with the Civil War. All moral obligations for black retribution against white oppression were paid in full through the blood shed and lives taken everywhere. Fortunes be damned.

Besides, it was the South who fired the first shot.

Daemonocracy on April 20, 2009 at 9:20 AM

I do agree, but in so doing, I yet observe.

1. The South was being preempted by Northern aggression into an economic and political coup.
2. Reverse discrimination has been around since Lee surrendered to Grant.
3. Constitutional States Rights as interpreted by the SCOTUS have suffered as again, the precedence of subsequent Northern sentiment in the Court pre-empted Southern civil rights to define “legitimacy” to the Northern advantage, not necessarily to the Union’s though the Northern Supreme Court Justices argued their omniscient benevolence.

Regarding regional populations, it was the North that was not satisfied to have pillaged, burned and utterly defeated the South. It was the North that withheld voting rights from Americans living in the South. It was the North that perpetuated the dissolution of the Union AFTER winning the Civil War, instigated civil segregation in the South only, not applicable to themselves as Northern victors, preventing whites from voting and from participating in government.
Yet discrimination against African-Americans thrived via white supremacist prejudice in the North the same as in the South, but without acknowledging their own ironic hypocrisy.

That was then, as well as now.

Until public sentiment quits disrespecting all things Southern, the North continues its prejudicial bombardment against the South. In those terms, isn’t the South that hasn’t let bygones be bygones, but the North. The South prospers. The North is bitter.

It appears that the Northeast has its own perpetual superiority complex to overcome with regard to fly-over America as well. And fly-over America may relate better with the South than to the Northeast.

As an ardent lover of our nation’s historical legacy, I avow my loyalty to our Constitution and constitutional government as defined by our Founding Fathers. As an American, I appreciate our great and sovereign nation and ALL who contribute to preserve our Constitution, our safety and liberty, enabling citizens to flourish with happiness and prosperity through our own personal efforts and common ground, the USA.

$.02

maverick muse on April 20, 2009 at 10:16 AM

First fast attack boats do not carry that much firepower, and the Boomers would be able to launch from wherever they happened to be.
.
Second you must really despise the military, if you think the people selected to crew the Boomers, or other nuclear launch facilities, would launch on people they think of as fellow Americans.

darktood on April 20, 2009 at 12:51 AM

Where are you people coming up with this crud??

I’m out there protesting the anti-war moonbats all the time!

ALL I am saying is that there is no way Texas would ever secede. Or be allowed to. Or get away with it.

And somehow THAT makes me some anti-military, lefty liberal.

I don’t get it.

As for US troops not wanting to attack Texans, because they would think of them as fellow Americans…I assume that’s probably what many Union troops thought when they had to fire on their fellow American Confederate troops. But in order to preserve the union, they had to.

Good thing they did.

JetBoy on April 20, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Notice the lefties are all for war and killing innocents as long as they are Americans dying.

ronsfi on April 20, 2009 at 12:02 AM

Not surprising. Leftists don’t deal well with rejection. How many millions of their own citizens did leftist governments kill in the 20th Century?

Rip Ford on April 20, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Slavery was wrong, the Abolitionists were right. If you want to complain about John Brown, fine, but Lincoln was right.

Very few of the abolitionists were right, such as Lysander Spooner.

The Dean on April 20, 2009 at 10:47 AM

I’m still waiting for some nitwit to pull a Russert and say “There would still be slavery in the South today!!!!!!!1111111oneoneone”

The Dean on April 20, 2009 at 10:59 AM

draft of a million or so healthy men and women over 18,

Nope. The nation of Texas wouldn’t need no stinkin’ draft.

ExTex on April 20, 2009 at 11:05 AM

It’s absurd for proponents or opponents to waste much time thinking about Texas seceding all alone.

Kralizec on April 20, 2009 at 11:10 AM

This country is ‘going to split’ and I’m not just talking Texas. It may not happen in my life time, but it will happen. We got state like Oklahoma, one of the most anti-obama, anti-liberal red state in the union. There are several other states. Conservatives and Liberal having different views is one thing, but when the people in power trying to destroy this country whether it be the right are the life there will come a time when the talking will stop. When it happen hopefully Texas will lead the way, hell why not, these damn liberals hate Texas anyway. Another great reason to love Texas.

Now Oklahoma? are you guys every going to get a descent football team?……….lol

Red River Rivalry……..go Horn!

try again later on April 20, 2009 at 11:30 AM

The answer is not for Texas, or any other state, to seccede. It is for them to stand at the forefront of the effort to rid this once-great nation of the ugliness and putrescence that is Obama.

SKYFOX on April 20, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Contrary to popular belief, slavery did not end with the civil war. It ended for the south at the end of the civil war, but the north still had slaves for several years after the end of the civil war.

44Magnum on April 20, 2009 at 12:00 PM

I live in Texas, so I could be biased in this affair, but I wonder how in the world the U.S.A. could fight to keep in citizenry who voted peacefully to secede in this day and age (without the great reason of freeing the slaves that they had 150 years ago) when they have berated so many other countries within the last few decades for forcibly trying to keep in citizenry who voted peacefully to secede in the very same manner.

Seriously.

Theophile on April 20, 2009 at 4:04 AM

Welcome to politics: Do as I say, not as I do.

I read this article a few days ago, and dismissed it as imagination-without-seeing-the-bigger-picture. There’s more holes in that projection than a slice of Swiss cheese.

It falls apart before step 1 (and I believe was mentioned here): if Texas secedes, it won’t be going out alone. Whether as a coordinated effort or as several other states seceding at the same time, the Union would face not one, but many, states leaving. And those states, facing a common enemy (the Union), would more than likely band together, even if the end result wasn’t a united nation.

CatsGodot on April 20, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Not surprising. Leftists don’t deal well with rejection. How many millions of their own citizens did leftist governments kill in the 20th Century?

Rip Ford on April 20, 2009 at 10:37 AM

More than 110 Million. Marxist governments accounting for 90 percent of that.

Chaz706 on April 20, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Jet Boy, don’t be silly.

If Texas left the Union, how could we ever back up the idea that a people should be free to have self determination wherever we went in the rest of the world? Imperialism is over, England, France, Belgium, etc. no longer hold colonies by the sword and the U.S. cannot hold the States. Can you imagine how quickly Obama would be removed from office if he ordered any kind of “Strike” on Texas! How about if Hawaii decided to reclaim their Sovereignty, which they have been very close to doing so several times. A few hours of video of dead Texas children, smashed Neighborhoods and you would have a literal revolt in the Military, let alone arousing the fury of this country to a level no seen in this land since the Independence movement.

GunRunner on April 20, 2009 at 12:03 PM

GunRunner on April 20, 2009 at 12:03 PM

You bring up a great point; and how many Americans out there have relatives or friends living in Texas?

carbon_footprint on April 20, 2009 at 12:07 PM

carbon_footprint on April 20, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Too many for any sustained action against Texas.

Chaz706 on April 20, 2009 at 12:17 PM

If texas secedes, george w. bush can be their president-for-life.

What can I do to help make this happen?

benny shakar on April 20, 2009 at 2:24 AM

Why would a Texas free of NY and CA elect a moderate?

18-1 on April 20, 2009 at 12:19 PM

According to DHS the military is packed full of radicalized right wing extremists. How many of them would accept orders to attack people trying to peacefully secede from the US in the first place?

Rip Ford on April 20, 2009 at 12:30 PM

We gave up some of our country to the white men, thinking that then we could have peace. We were mistaken. The white man would not let us alone. We soon found that the white men were growing rich very fast, and were greedy. Some of you think an Indian is like a wild animal. This is a great mistake. I only ask of the government to be treated as all other men are treated. Treat all men alike. Give them the same law. Give them an even chance to live and grow.

Hinmahtooyahlatkek on April 20, 2009 at 2:58 AM
…………..BOO HOO The Indians constantly fought among themselves and now you got the same law and you abuse you children at the highest rates in the country and drink yourselves to deatrh while doing it.

cjk on April 20, 2009 at 12:47 PM

try again later on April 20, 2009 at 11:30 AM…….Mark my words “Hawaii will be the first state to actually secede in the 21st. century”

cjk on April 20, 2009 at 12:50 PM

What can I do to help make this happen?

benny shakar on April 20, 2009 at 2:24 AM

How about we all agree, trolls and conservatives, that we all work together to make this happen?

After reading this thread last night, my wife and I were enjoying just thinking about what it would be like to be in a truly free country. Think of the possibilities! We wanted to redo the words to “Imagine” and apply them to imagining living in a free nation. Our country is like the frog in the heated pot! We have forgotten what real freedom is in the face of creeping socialism. It’s time to jump out of the pot by changing the country — one way or another.

Christian Conservative on April 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM

Christian Conservative on April 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM

Indeed.

* Imagine no federal income tax.
* Imagine drilling for oil to reduce fuel costs.
* Imagine a true free market absent of regulations.
* Imagine Christmas with Christ in it.
* Imagine abortion being abolished on day one.
* Imagine no IRS, FBI, CIA, DHS or ATF.
* Imagine a government accountable to the people.

carbon_footprint on April 20, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Essentially, this means that they lied to us knowing that GM wasn’t fixable … or they didn’t lie and they just are dumb but in charge.

Upstater8

That money wasn’t spent to save GM. It was spent to fund GM’s pension plans.

A kickback to labor.

Kristopher on April 20, 2009 at 1:28 PM

Remember all the warning our media gave when we were going to invade Afghanistan? It’s too hot this and it’s too cold that…only the most seasoned can with withstand the horrible conditions. Believe me when I say this and take it as a warning, you don’t want to be struggling against anything but a cool drink on any typical August day down here. But if you do invade, please take out Austin first and give us a few days to celebrate…

DanMan on April 20, 2009 at 1:52 PM

People using the Internet should know better by now.

Shy Guy on April 20, 2009 at 3:28 AM

Thanks for that. After reading that piece of contrived tripe (only after the 1st sentence really) I knew George would have never said such a thing.
GW would have been extremely insulted having something like that attributed to him.
I think it’s disgusting to paste such tripe on him.

Hinmahtooyahlatkek on April 20, 2009 at 2:58 AM

As an amateur student of the history of several American Indian tribes, I can safely say you are no different than the European except for the fact that Europeans were more organized in their conquest.
It is truly disgusting the US Govt doesn’t honor its treaties to the tribes & I believe in keeping the Domestic dependent nations of tribes in existence.
Despite the lifestyle difference, so many Indian tribes had their own problems & were screwing around with each other violently long before we came upon the scene.
So let’s dry our eyes & get over the past, learn from it, & move on to do better instead of whining about this crap.
I would probably be a little more sympathetic if I didn’t visit McLaughlin,SD & other reservation towns close to me.
The Lakota have only themselves to blame for the pickle they are in NOW.
Some are pulling their heads of out their arses, like the ones who are getting together to buy up the white land on the res. there & ranch together.
But for the most part, all I ever see is the typical Lakota in McLaughlin SD with a 5th in his hand &/or a hand out begging for a dollar.

Badger40 on April 20, 2009 at 2:01 PM

Really? You’d just give up all of your processions? How would it have “harmed” them? Britain had no problem freeing their slaves much earlier…

Then you don’t know your history. Britain had a huge economic collapse by instant universal manumission. It was so bad that they had to figure out a way to “reimburse” the owners.

The North freed their slaves, but the only reason for that was it was a delayed freeing that allowed the owners enough time to head South to sell them. Thereby eliminating an issue of financial loss.

First, Jefferson doesn’t speak for the South. Secondly, if he realized the economical pitfalls that Slavery brought, why did he continue holding slaves? Further, there were many poor Southerners with no slaves, but they had no political voice.

Did you just ignore the second part of that point? I pointed out that the South had more Anti-Slavery societies than did the North, until Nat Turner’s Rebellion.

Interesting point that I’ve heard before, but then why did the “Christian South” get into Slavery in the first place? Again, there were many poor Christian Southerners that didn’t own slaves and there were some greedy plantation owners that had a lot of clout…

Well, you have to remember that slavery was a universal. So it wasn’t something that was new or novel. Every society in the world at that point had slavery.

In the South, there was more than just slavery at the founding. There was also indentured servitude, which many whites were involved in as servants.

Then Antonio the Negro (Yes, he was black) brought lifetime slavery to the Americas.

Basically, the Christian South had a different view of slavery. The South thought to follow St. Paul’s writings in Philemon. They believe that they were to evangelize the pagan slaves (an eternal good) and they were to treat them as brothers. This is why so many rejected the anti-literacy laws and actually did teach their slaves to read. They believed it was a good for slaves to be able to read so they could ultimately learn the Bible.

I’ve actually read some of the sermons in the Antebellum South. They did teach it was wrong to randomly beat their slaves and it was wrong to harm them in any physical way (besides the economic issues with an injured slave).

In fact many of the slaves did find it better to be under a Christian under a non-Christian owner. It also helped that abusive owners would be ostracized by churches if they were unjust.

Yet in the North it was much different. They worked their slaves to death literally. When they have found black graves, they have been able to study and see the physical issues caused by the overwork and under nutrition. In the South, it was traditional that when a slave was too old to work, they be “retired”. This is why in the Song of the South, Uncle Remus was a family member to the plantation. I know the Song of the South was fiction, but it bears a much more realistic view of the South than did Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

Unfortunately, lies tend to make more of an impression than the truth. After all, look at how Silent Spring was a lie, but one that caught on. It ended up costing 200+ million lives.

Also, in the South the slaves had a longer life span and were generally more content than even free blacks in the North. As De Tocqueville wrote, the South had no issues working blacks and white together, but in the North whites refused to work next to blacks.

While, it hadn’t happened yet, there was a new movement that was taking place in the South. Jefferson was a part of it. The movement was to train their slaves to be productive members of society in order to free them so they could be “equals”. Maybe not quite literally, but better than after the War of Northern Agression.

Basically, the whites (incorrectly, but understandably) blamed their problems and suffering on the blacks. Since they lost a lot of what value they had in them, they decided that there were no more familial bonds tying them together and therefore used an abusive system called share cropping.

It was at this point that black and white churches sprung up. It was common for owners and slaves to worship in the same church. There were also slaves who would be allowed to preach in churches in Antebellum South.

Now, I’ll admit some owners abused their slaves, but so do some husbands abuse their wives. The thing you have to answer yourself is why is there only one picture that exists of horrendous abuse? There are not thousands of pictures of them. It wasn’t common to be able to have escaped slaves show physical signs of abuse pre-CW. They claimed they were abused, but little physical evidence was shown.

I then to think that they didn’t abuse them for moral and economic issues. I support this by the man who lead the Rebellion that changed much of the views on slavery in the South, Nat Turner. He admitted that he was well treated, fed well, taught to read and not beat. Yet he went on a rampage.

You also have to remember the other major occurrence that affected the South. That was the slave revolt in Haiti. There were 10K to 20K white on that island and they were virtually all killed (few escaped) during the revolt. Haiti was French and remember they just had the French Revolution, which was very much an Atheistic Movement. Haiti absolutely abused their slaves, because sugar/rum was such a cash crop to make cotton look small. The issue is when you have that kind of blood shed, you might be a little scared to let loose and give freedom the blacks in your area.

Yet, even with this, for the most part blacks given a lot of freedom that you wouldn’t expect. Many had rifles of their own that they bought. Once they met their quota, they were allowed to work for their own gain. An example is the 3rd biggest slave owner in the Carolinas, W. Ellison. He was a slave who bought his own freedom and purchased slaves as he built an empire. He also was allowed to buy a family pew in the most prominent Episcopalian Church in the region.

Tim Burton on April 20, 2009 at 2:10 PM

Thank you, Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul.

Shy Guy on April 20, 2009 at 3:41 AM

1. I didnt’ vote for Ron Paul and don’t support his foreign policy.

2. Is that the best you can do, an ad hominem attack?

Tim Burton on April 20, 2009 at 2:12 PM

maverick muse on April 20, 2009 at 10:16 AM

.
Lincoln, the greatest voice for a just peace, who was attempting to compensate southern former slave owners for their loss, when he was assassinated. The actions of a vengeful north after the assassination, is not a proper measure of Lincoln’s presidency.

darktood on April 20, 2009 at 5:22 PM

May I remind the leftwing statists that the US Military takes an oath to the Constitution, not the Fed, not the Congress, not the Prez.

Check out OathKeepers.blogspot.com for more valuable info on this matter.

As for me, count me in. I love Texas.

The Free-State movement now has a new home & should pursue accordingly.

thaDeetz on April 20, 2009 at 8:08 PM

Lincoln, the greatest voice for a just peace, who was attempting to compensate southern former slave owners for their loss, when he was assassinated. The actions of a vengeful north after the assassination, is not a proper measure of Lincoln’s presidency.

darktood on April 20, 2009 at 5:22 PM

Sure it is. He poured the gasoline, just because he didn’t light the fire, doesn’t mean he is guilt free.

Tim Burton on April 21, 2009 at 1:44 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5