TexasCHLforum.com

PriestTheRunner wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 12:12 am Yall ready yet?

I've been binging on Hulu since Thanksgiving, watching Homeland, the original Showtime series about clandestine spy stuff. There are a couple of seasons focusing on the attempts by Russia to unravel U.S. society, U.S. elections, etc. by way of social media disinformation and muckraking. This thread makes me wonder.

OneGun wrote: Sun Sep 02, 2018 10:33 pm PTR,

You put a great deal of thought and care into articulating your viewpoint. I agree with some of your points, but not all. Most importantly, while you make a good argument for Texit, I firmly believe that establishing Texas as an independent country is much more complex than I think people appreciate.

The replacement of the services provided by the Federal government would not be a simple task. Take something like the postal service. While many people pay bills electronically, many people that live paycheck to paycheck still pay bills by mail because they don't have a banking relationship with a financial institution. Many people depend on the postal service and check cashing services. In addition, replacing the Medicare would be extremely hard. While Obamacare was a disaster for the general population, many people over 65 depend on Medicare. That replacement cost alone would be extremely difficult for senior citizens with health problems to afford if they weren't able to work because of their health. Could Texas absorb the cost of providing a Medicare replacement? I have my doubts given the magnitude of the costs. Finally, there are the numerous details that would need to be ironed out to establish trade, currency, defense, citizenship, diplomacy, credit, etc. if Texas became independent.

In simple terms, the idea of being an independent country is appealing, but the devil is in the details. Also, with Texas' major cities being Liberal Democrat enclaves, I wonder if many people in Texas would really back a Texit. I know, a referendum would answer that question. But the referendum would not present all of the details.

One lesson I took away from the Brexit vote, is that many people voted for the concept of Brexit, but that many people did not appreciate the consequences of Brexit. My firm has an office in London. Many people in that office are from other countries and may have to leave Great Britain because of Brexit. Many people from Great Britain that work in other parts of the EU will have to relocate back to Great Britain. The EU and Great Britain have not resolved the trade issues.

I believe that if the people that voted for Brexit were presented with all of the details, consequences, changes, etc. that goes along with Brexit, the results of the referendum would have been much different.

Those are just my thoughts.

This

crazy2medic wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 8:24 pm http://chng.it/W5FZ6KmmJC, my 2cents worth

This is what I see:

Well this is embarrassing…

We couldn't find the page you were looking for.

Go back to our homepage.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 10:21 am

crazy2medic wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 8:24 pm http://chng.it/W5FZ6KmmJC, my 2cents worth

This is what I see:

Well this is embarrassing…

We couldn't find the page you were looking for.

Go back to our homepage.

Apparently my petition was offensive so they deleted it!

srothstein wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 2:04 am

philip964 wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 8:40 pm

crazy2medic wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 8:24 pm http://chng.it/W5FZ6KmmJC, my 2cents worth

This above seems to believe there is a legal way of leaving. If I remember during the Obama days, it was bantered about and I thought there was no legal mechanism.

Seems like since we were our own country, it would have been a good thing to stick in the joining agreement, but all I remember was Texas could become more smaller states if it wanted.

Any ideas?

In the case of Texas v. White, et al, SCOTUS ruled that membership in the United States was in perpetuity and that there was no legal or Constitutional way to dissolve that union. The logic used was that the original union was based on the Articles of Confederation specifically stated it was a perpetual union and the Constitution says it was to form a more perfect union. If a union is perpetual and then made more perfect, how could that not still be perpetual.

This is a line of reasoning I’d never previously considered. I would offer an alternate take though..... I am certain that King George viewed his empire as perpetual, and his authority (during his life) as immutable. History says different. Whether we view it from a secular or a spiritual perspective, literally nothing in the works of mankind is perpetual. Empires come and go. Peoples move to and fro. And Father Time overcomes ALL barriers to change. Ecclesiastes has something to say about this.

srothstein wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 2:04 am While this decision referred to Texas seceding during the Civil War, it can also be taken to mean the congress cannot kick us out nor can it agree to us leaving. The possibilities then become that a new SCOTUS disregards this precedent, either recognizes Texas independence on the basis of our secession or recognizing Texas independence on the basis of a congressional agreement granting us independence. Otherwise, Texas becomes independent solely by violent means and convincing the US and the world that we won the ensuing war.

This is all true, but if one loves liberty, then one has to extrapolate each possibility to its logical conclusion.....in its entirety. IF democrats succeed in gaining the senate, abolishing the filibuster, and (God help us) packing the Court, the American Experiment is over. Period. And if it is over, then what possible choice do patriots have, other than (a) submitting to the loss of our rights, or (b) fighting (literally) to defend them? And if it is to be fighting to defend them, then how does that NOT involve fighting for a separation from those states whose population majorities want a totalitarian leftist gov’t?

For the record, and I’m repeating myself ad nauseum here, only a fool wants this to happen; but equally, only a fool fails to recognize the possibilities and to prepare themselves spiritually and materially for those possibilities.

IF the worst happens, and the democrats take the senate, locking down any possibility of filibuster, and packing the court, then there is only ONE relatively peaceful way out of this—and this has been my message for several years now—and that is a Balkanization of the country. That Balkanization would take the form of relatively like-minded states forming semiautonomous regions in which DC becomes increasingly irrelevant and finally falls in on itself. It might be insurmountably hard (or not) for Texas to achieve independence. But it would be much easier for a hypothetical coalition of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana to become independent. All 6 of these states are similar in many things. They tend toward the conservative/libertarian overall, but they have high concentrations of liberals in their largest cities. They all possess strong agricultural and/or energy production, and an industrial base. They all six have a military infrastructure, staffed by people who predominantly came from this group of particular states, and whose personal politics probably tend more toward the conservative or libertarian than to the leftist/socialist/communist. These states all tend to support the 2nd Amendment specifically and the Constitution generally. They all tend to believe that a well-rounded life includes some kind of religious component that gives mankind a moral center from which to consider wider issues. Such a coalition seems like a natural thing, and there are certainly other regions that would coalesce along similar lines of geographical commonality, shared values, etc.....whether or not those would be OUR values. OUR coalition might eventually rewrite or amend the current Constitution to include certain verbiage to guarantee certain rights "in perpetuity" (although we know what "in perpetuity" is really worth).

I would propose the following kinds of examples......

• Either amending or rewriting the original 2nd Amendment to clarify that it is specifically an individual right and that it may never be infringed in any way, at any level of gov’t, period.
• Adding an amendment stating that no part of either the original text of the Constitution and it’s already existent amendments OR its newly written replacement can ever be modified by amendment.
• Adding another amendment making it unconstitutional to repeal the amendment protecting the sanctity of the prior-existing text.

These are just general ideas, but you get my drift. Once rights are constitutionally described to be natural, individual, and eternally inviolable, further amendment is necessary to make it unconstitutional to in any way diminish those rights for the sake of the state's convenience or any kind of party ideology.

The purpose of this wording is NOT to fool us into thinking that these rights will be eternally respected because the pretty words make them so, but to leave the enemies of our liberty only ONE recourse to reshaping our society, and that is to OPEN with overt violence, instead of gradually snipping away at them behind the scenes until WE have to dig ourselves out of a hole created by our own apathy. Our current constitution ONLY works if a majority of The People actively defend it.....and I don’t mean just on the battlefield, but also in the home, in the classroom, and in the halls of gov’t....against any and all attempts to weaken it. If the enemy opens with violence, it will shock the rest of us into making an equally overt stand to defend those rights, instead of sitting at home and leaving it to our paid lackeys in gov’t to defend them for us. We all know what happens when we do that. Those paid lackeys begin to lose their allegiance to their constituencies, and discover new constituencies at privileged cocktail parties to represent. We can’t ever let that happen again.

Our Founders made one mistake, and that was their assumption that future generations would be as zealous for liberty as they were themselves. Those of us who still revere what they created are, sadly but realistically, in the minority if voter turnouts are to be believed. The incoming generation of voters—who have been indoctrinated in deliberately dumbed-down schools, and who are more concerned about their gender confusion, college debt, and intersectional Marxism than they are about the precious rights that have been handed down to them—will make absolutely certain that our constitutional republic form of gov't is done. So what then?

Balkanization is the only way out that minimizes the odds of mass slaughter, and maximizes the continued existence of liberty in whatever form the country takes going forward. And THAT is how Texit will most likely succeed.

TAM, you made several good points and I agree almost 100%, so I am only going to make a couple small comments.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 11:58 amThis is all true, but if one loves liberty, then one has to extrapolate each possibility to its logical conclusion.....in its entirety. IF democrats succeed in gaining the senate, abolishing the filibuster, and (God help us) packing the Court, the American Experiment is over. Period. And if it is over, then what possible choice do patriots have, other than (a) submitting to the loss of our rights, or (b) fighting (literally) to defend them? And if it is to be fighting to defend them, then how does that NOT involve fighting for a separation from those states whose population majorities want a totalitarian leftist gov’t?

For the record, and I’m repeating myself ad nauseum here, only a fool wants this to happen; but equally, only a fool fails to recognize the possibilities and to prepare themselves spiritually and materially for those possibilities.

This is exactly why I was saying in another post that we need to plan our strategy and tactics now, before it is forced upon us. We need our contingency plans done, so we know what to do and how to act in each possible scenario. If we are lucky and the Republicans manage to keep control of the senate for the next four years, we will see some problems but should manage to keep the damage to our rights to a minimum. We need to plan for exactly what we want to do that we can hopefully get through, such as making a new federal law on how to conduct federal elections. That will be a hard fight but might be the best path for the country. I would hope that even people who like the result of this election would realize that when half the country have no faith in the election process, our country is doomed.

If the Republicans do not keep control of the senate, a completely different set of contingency plans is needed. For example, it might be time for Texas to break up into five states, as our legal right to do this is firm. That would give us ten US senators and it is highly likely that at least eight of them would be Republicans, changing control of the Senate again.

And if neither of these work, a third or more sets of contingency plans would be needed. I hope our elected leaders at the levels below the president are working on these plans now. Even assuming they are, we, as individuals, must work out our own contingency plans too.

Hopefully, one of the political sets works and we keep our country functioning as a republic composed of fifty (or fifty-four) states.

IF the worst happens, and the democrats take the senate, locking down any possibility of filibuster, and packing the court, then there is only ONE relatively peaceful way out of this—and this has been my message for several years now—and that is a Balkanization of the country. That Balkanization would take the form of relatively like-minded states forming semiautonomous regions in which DC becomes increasingly irrelevant and finally falls in on itself. It might be insurmountably hard (or not) for Texas to achieve independence. But it would be much easier for a hypothetical coalition of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana to become independent.

My only comment here is that when I thought of this scenario, I foresaw a slightly different set of states. No complaint with the ones you chose, just that I saw it as basically being the states that touch Texas. Include New Mexico and drop of Kansas and Missouri. You do make a sound argument for including Kansas and Missouri though. I am not sure that your combination would not be the better one.

crazy2medic wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 7:56 am They'd probably get better care else where, my Grandfather HATED the VA, refused to go there! From my own personal experience taking Vets to the VA in Dallas the one thing that always shined through, the VA doesn't Care!

My wife’s uncle used to threaten to go to the VA as a way of saying he was ready to end it all.

The North Texas VA system has done an excellent job of taking care of me these past few years.

I get my primary care from the Greenville facility (contracted with Baylor Scott & White) and, when possible, I go to the Bonham VA for other issues.

My least favorite is going to the Dallas VA hospital. That's mostly due to the drive, the long hike from parking into the hospital, and then finding my way through the maze inside. They also have done a good job for me, but they don't have quite the same level of friendly, "We're glad to see you", attitude of the other two.

All-in-all, I'd be hard pressed to complain.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 11:58 am This is all true, but if one loves liberty, then one has to extrapolate each possibility to its logical conclusion.....in its entirety. IF democrats succeed in gaining the senate, abolishing the filibuster, and (God help us) packing the Court, the American Experiment is over. Period. And if it is over, then what possible choice do patriots have, other than (a) submitting to the loss of our rights, or (b) fighting (literally) to defend them? And if it is to be fighting to defend them, then how does that NOT involve fighting for a separation from those states whose population majorities want a totalitarian leftist gov’t?

This video presented a twist on secession I found interesting from Ulysses S Grant himself. While the subject of the video is about the what happens if President Trump is arrested, it addresses the possibility of civil war. (someone explain how to embed youtube videos instead of a link, please).

https://youtu.be/nedIQHpn9RQ

mayor wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 5:28 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 11:58 am This is all true, but if one loves liberty, then one has to extrapolate each possibility to its logical conclusion.....in its entirety. IF democrats succeed in gaining the senate, abolishing the filibuster, and (God help us) packing the Court, the American Experiment is over. Period. And if it is over, then what possible choice do patriots have, other than (a) submitting to the loss of our rights, or (b) fighting (literally) to defend them? And if it is to be fighting to defend them, then how does that NOT involve fighting for a separation from those states whose population majorities want a totalitarian leftist gov’t?

This video presented a twist on secession I found interesting from Ulysses S Grant himself. While the subject of the video is about the what happens if President Trump is arrested, it addresses the possibility of civil war. (someone explain how to embed youtube videos instead of a link, please).

https://youtu.be/nedIQHpn9RQ

Interesting video. I PM'd you a response.

mayor wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 5:28 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 11:58 am This is all true, but if one loves liberty, then one has to extrapolate each possibility to its logical conclusion.....in its entirety. IF democrats succeed in gaining the senate, abolishing the filibuster, and (God help us) packing the Court, the American Experiment is over. Period. And if it is over, then what possible choice do patriots have, other than (a) submitting to the loss of our rights, or (b) fighting (literally) to defend them? And if it is to be fighting to defend them, then how does that NOT involve fighting for a separation from those states whose population majorities want a totalitarian leftist gov’t?

This video presented a twist on secession I found interesting from Ulysses S Grant himself. While the subject of the video is about the what happens if President Trump is arrested, it addresses the possibility of civil war. (someone explain how to embed youtube videos instead of a link, please).

https://youtu.be/nedIQHpn9RQ

The leftist dream scenario of arresting Trump will be their worst nightmare.