TX Gov Perry says Texas can leave the union!

leave the USA. I suppose they think that is good news for the Union, but I think of the opposite. 25% must want to leave the Union, which is a huge number at this point in time as we travel down the 10 or 15 year road to the breakup of the USA, probably through civil war.

But we are not buying it. With a track record like yours, it's obvious you're now trying to fit in where you don't belong. Get lost, hypocrite!

Once again, thanks to all the federal income tax that is extracted from every citizen's paycheck and sent to Washington D.C. That, my friends, is the tie that binds our States. The feds control the money of the citizens of any State. Maybe a particular State would have enough gumption to "overrule" the federal withholding tax. Wouldn't that make the Governor popular! (not with the National Guard, which would be mobilized to pay a visit to said Governor). It wouldn't be so bad, if the government was well managed, and not so inclined to dubious, deceitful, wasteful, porkulative misusses of money. I'm all for a Federal Government, I'd just like one as outlined in our Constitution. They've overstepped their authority in so many ways, and we've had very little recourse on what to do about it. As we've seen, it doesn't really matter "who" we send to Congress, once they get there, they eagerly join the club. You won't find too many Ron Pauls running around the halls of Congress!

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.

I try to be an independent observer of political actions.

I hear some Democrats saying that secession is treasonous. How so? It is the right of any person, group of people, town, city, or state to secede if they feel that the central United States government is no longer ensuring their personal freedoms. Our government, for the last 46 years or so, has been highly unconstitutional and practiced many unlawful acts against its own citizens. The real reason that the government spied on JFK, MLK, RFK, Malcolm X, The Beatles, the hippie movement, John Lennon, and many more, is not because of any wrongdoing on their part, it was because the government, which was and continues to be the operating hand of very rich and powerful elite individuals, was fearing that said individuals were a threat to their world control. What these certain elite people are concerned about is retaining their wealth, plain and simple, and they fear an independent and autonomous society of free people. Their fears are not warranted though, because no one in their right mind wants to take their money, we want to protect their money. But we want money too! We don't want to be working slaves or useless eaters, we want to be free and responsible people, on the level with each human being as a human being, not as superior or inferior. We don't want their money, we want a truly free, free-trading society that is so greatly productive that it creates massive amounts of wealth for everyone. Wealth that would make regular people prosperous and make the rich even richer! There's nothing wrong with making money. What's wrong is that people are not treated like human beings in the process, and that must change.

Everyone deserves to be free. Humans are the most intelligent life-form that is officially recognized by science. So why are many human beings treated like animals? Regardless of your skin color or nationality, we are all living, breathing, beautiful and intelligent creatures who deserve nothing less than a safe, happy, healthy, and prosperous life. Our freedom should NEVER be infringed upon. And if Texas, or anyone else feels that they are able to take care of themselves apart from a central government, they should be allowed to be autonomous. It would take a lot to do so at this point in history, but I say more power to them- if they can do it, go for it!

If you honestly believe that the mr perry is doing anything other than grandstanding, you really need to do a serious reality check.

Where has his support for your rights been up until now? What draconian laws has he signed?

Keep making their case for them people. You really are to damn stupid to govern yourselves, really.

Out side of Texans, very few people even know this little secrete. And only the State of Texas out of all the other lower 48 states has this special right.

Texas was a separate Country unto itself prior to becoming a State. It was never a part of any US Federal Territorial lands, as all the other States were before applying for Statehood.

Not only was Texas a separate Country unto itself, it was recognized as such by the Government of the The United States Of America.

Texas negotiated with the US Government to become a State, with conditions. One of those Conditions was the RIGHT to secede anytime they choose too.

If Texas ever chooses succession, we will see if our Government will honor their contract with them.

GOOOOOO Texas.

hjschaapman

and that document has no bearing upon it.

Even Lincoln used the proper reference (though incorrectly) which is the Articles of Confederation.

When a State joins the union, they do so as if they were original members. Original members are members by virtue of their ratification of the Articles of Confederation which is the ONLY official document to CREATE the union, known as "The United States of America."

The Articles are still in effect, though not enforced or used to handle the common affairs of the States. They were never abrogated nor repealed, dissolved, or repudiated.

The Constitution merely organized a central government for the union created by the Articles, and only those States ratifying the same, participate in that government.

When the southern states seceded from the Articles in the mid 1800's then they were no longer part of the union. They were all militarily conquered and re-formed and re-admitted after the war.

Lincoln was incorrect when he asserted the reference to "perpetual" union meaning forever. He was a charlatan for as a lawyer he would have known that perpetual, especially in this context, (that of a contract) does not mean "forever" but means rather that the AoC does not SPECIFICALLY have to be renewed after a certain term. By including that article in the document, the founders were stating that the union would continue until and unless they decided to dissolve it.

Additionally, the union is one of "mutual friendship." Thus a 'forced union' enforced at the point of the federal gun, is neither in any way "mutual" or "friendship."

Lincoln was wrong from start to finish on this question.

Interestingly, this brings up a unique solution to our current plight.

If the Federal Government should abrogate or suspend the Constitution, then the states are still left with the Articles of Confederation to handle the governing of their common affairs, and their own State Constitutions for internal affairs. If the Feds suspend the Constitution, the only thing that goes away is the Federal Government. (and any claim to power they presently hold) All protections of inalienable rights still stand as they are included in the Articles, and in the several State Constitutions.

After looking at our present situation, this may be our best hope yet. Let the bastards suspend their own charter of authority if they wish. Our liberties remain intact, and they are now unemployed. They have no claim of protection from self defense, or from out right vengeance for their crimes. Any former federal official, in any capacity who attempts after the suspension of the Constitution, to act under color of law, would be and should be, treated as either a traitor - making war against the people, or as an insurrectionist for they have no longer any legitimate claim to power or authority. In short, they would be utter morons for doing away with the Constitution.

However, as long as they keep the pretenses of the Constitution in place, but continue to ignore it in all respects limiting their power, we are in deep doo-doo.

When the southern states seceded in 1861, they thought they were rendering a consummately legal act. Nowhere did the Constitution say that the states do not have the power to secede. Nor did it give power to the Federal Government to stop secession. So they exceeded their authorized powers by attacking the southern states.

And if that's not clear enough already, the 10th Amendment made it perfectly clear that any powers not given to the Federal Government were left to the states and to the people. Therefore, the states were and are perfectly free to secede.

Think about it--how wonderful would a marriage be where the one partner stays on account of the fact that the other has threatened murder should the first leave?

The threat of secession is one of the "checks and balances" that the states have against the Federal Government. That's part of the wisdom of the Constitution.

But they teach our children that we are "one nation....INDIVISIBLE...."

Not true!

Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com

http://www.infowars.com/rick-perrys-cynical-effort-to-exploi...

Mr. Perry has to face a very angry electorate in the 2010 primaries and is trying to position himself as a "conservative" ASAP. As much as I support this, I still smell a rat.

... I should also add that he didn't back fellow Texan, Ron Paul, for President last year. Not that it surprised me.

leave Texas