bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

fubar said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Texasjeremy said:

---

Keep in mind, if it were to get on the ballot and pass, they would then form a committee to spend 2 years investigating if its feasible. Think of it like Brexit, once it passed the voters it took awhile before they were able to separate themselves. Not saying they are right or wrong, but if Texas would be better off, it is at the very least worth looking into.

---

Let's be real about this. They don't need a committee to investigate whether secession is feasible (along with the old idea of dividing into 5 states). You could make 5 quick phone calls to constitutional law experts and get the answer, which is no.

This is not about helping the people of Texas make a more informed decision. This is just about scoring political points, and wasting taxpayer money in the process.

---

I think you are wrong about Texas being able to divide into 5 states.

Revisionist History has a great podcast on this. I'll track it down and post for you

---

I believe Texas did have that option when it was first admitted in 1845.

People seem to forget that Texas was admitted a second time, and I doubt that provision about dividing was in there that time.

---

This law review article says Texas can divide & we already have permission from the US Congress to do so.
http://revisionisthistory.com/pdfs/Kesavan_Paulsen.pdf

---

What would you gain from division?

---

I'm not at the point I'm willing to secede but, I think the details need to be looked at now to see what we'd be up against during and after Texit. I think it's akin to reviewing your options before removing that benign tumor.

---

Since this all speculative anyway, I'll go ahead and speculate what would happen in the wake of a Texit:

Texas would immediately become a lot more like Mexico than a lot of Texans would like: poorer, weaker, and with a worse quality of life for many of its citizens.

Poorer: Texas is a net recipient of federal money, receiving more back from Washington than it contributes in taxes. State's economy still heavily affected by oil prices -- not a great industry to bet on for the long term, especially with GM's announcement yesterday.

Weaker: US military pullout from Ft. Hood, Ft. Bliss, AF bases in San Antonio, Brook Army Medical Center removes a lot of jobs and economic infusion now coming into the state. Besides Texas now having to foot the bill for its own defense, I presume the state would have to negotiate to purchase the land for those bases.

Quality of life: In Texas, 4.4 million people (mostly children) received Medicaid assistance. Somehow I doubt that independent Texas would provide anything close to the social safety net that people now have. That may be just fine with a majority of Texans, but it means they'll also have to live with more people on the margins, with poorer health outcomes, etc. Would Texans lose their Social Security and Medicare benefits that they've paid into the system but haven't accessed yet? Those could be negotiated in some type of Texit treaty, but if Texas simply votes to secede, I don't see that Congress is obliged to give that money back.

---

The point of HB 1359 is not to seceed, but to allow Texans to vote to allow the state to get more clarification on many topics regarding independence.

This might be able to address some of your concerns, hope this helps:

Will Texas be able to fund the government after TEXIT?
https://tnm.me/texit/government/will-texas-be-able-to-fund-the-government-after-texit
Simple arithmetic proves the ability of an independent Texas to fund a government at the same level that Texans are currently accustomed to if that's what Texans want.

Texans currently pay, in all, federal and state taxes an average of $336 billion per year. This represents the total amount of revenue readily available to an independent Texas without increasing the financial burden on Texans one single cent. From that amount, subtract the amount spent by both the federal government and state government in Texas. $228 billion is the average amount of expenditures required to maintain every program, every job (both civilian and military), every department, every facility (including military bases), and fulfill every function (including current federal contract spending to Texas companies) provided by the federal and state governments. This level of government revenue would rank Texas 12th in the world for government revenue collected.

Will the economy in an independent Texas be better?
https://tnm.me/texit/business-commerce-trade/will-the-economy-in-an-independent-texas-be-better
On average, Texas ranks as having the 10th largest economy in the world. There is no doubt that an independent Texas will do better.

To quote the conservative firebrand and Texit advocate, Claver Kamau-Imani, "After Texit, we're gonna be rich!" He's not exaggerating. Texas already collectively possesses a fair amount of wealth as one of the largest economies in the world. However, Texit promises to bring that wealth to every citizen of Texas. In exploring the negative effect of excessive federal regulations on Texans, the cited study showed how it has shrunk the paychecks of Texans by 75 percent. Flip the script and look at it from the standpoint of a Texas no longer subjected to those excessive federal regulations. Over time, the average Texan could see a 400 percent increase in take-home pay.

The retention of this type of wealth by Texans translates into an explosion of new business startups and corporate expansions, reducing unemployment to near zero. Texas can experience double-digit economic growth as the lack of an income tax turns Texas into an international haven for wealth and foreign investment. All of this economic activity results in an increase in government revenue, leading to better schools, improved infrastructure, and additional tax breaks.

The best data available shows a correlation between increased consumer spending and an increase in household income at a near 1:1 ratio. With these kinds of numbers, Texas could eliminate the property tax, leave the sales tax rate untouched, and still produce an increase in government revenue over and above what Texans currently pay to both the state and federal governments.

What will happen to all of the U.S. military bases after TEXIT?
https://tnm.me/texit/defense-national-security/what-will-happen-to-all-of-the-u-s-military-bases-after-texit
Texas is currently home to 15 military installations with an economic impact of around $150 billion. However, the military installations account for only $14 billion in federal payroll spending in Texas. In addition, there are currently more than 118,000 Texans on active duty status across all branches of the military. These are not insignificant figures.

However, it is important not to conflate the issues of military presence and political union. The United States maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad. No one would argue that those 70 countries are in a political union with the United States due to the presence of a U.S. military base, nor would anyone argue that they should be. The presence of these military bases on foreign soil is solely about shared defense concerns and security interests. It does not imply any further political connection.

After a Texit, Texas may not share a government with the rest of the United States, but we will still share defense and national security concerns. International military cooperation has been a cornerstone of U.S. defense policy since the Second World War and, while it has been suggested that there should be some reforms, the underlying policy is unlikely to change, especially close to home.

It is, therefore, highly probable that Texas would enter into a mutual defense pact with the United States that includes joint use and operation of existing military bases and facilities in Texas or their full transfer to the Texas Military Department. As a part of any mutual defense pact, Texas will likely have to pledge to spend a set percentage of its GDP on national defense, much like the reforms proposed for NATO. In return, the United States should guarantee the availability of military arms and equipment for tariff-free purchase by manufacturers in the United States and vice versa. Texas should stipulate that the mutual defense pact should only extend to commonly agreed defense concerns.

Any mutual defense pact of this nature could set a transition period where things essentially stay as they are now, operating under a joint command until such time as the already established Texas Military Forces are at full readiness.

What could replace Social Security in an independent Texas?
https://tnm.me/texit/healthcare-social-services/what-could-replace-social-security-in-an-independent-texas
Although those currently receiving Social Security payments would continue to do so in an independent Texas, the question becomes one of what a replacement system could look like in an independent Texas.

Fortunately, Texas is already leading the way with concrete examples of what a Social Security replacement could look like.

Three counties in Texas have shown the public that they can opt-out of Social Security by setting up their own system for personal retirement accounts. This decision has allowed these counties to avoid any financial concerns and has even provided their retirees with a higher amount of retirement income.

Employees of Brazoria, Matagorda, and Galveston County have experienced a growth in retirement savings annually. Under their model, both employee and employer contributions are handled by a financial planner. The agency "First Financial Benefits Inc." of Houston currently manages their retirement accounts and has done so since the system's inception in 1981.

All of the contributions are collected, similar to bank deposits, and financial institutions begin bidding on the money. These same institutions guarantee that interest rates will not go down to a certain level, and may even go higher if everything goes smoothly in the market.

Under this model, accounts are able to earn between 3.75% and 5.75% each year, averaging at about 5% overall. This rate was even higher during the 1990s when it reached up to 7%. Ultimately, employees make more money when the market is up but will still earn something even when it goes down.

These "Texas Model" in these three counties has consistently outperformed the federal system with better returns and greater long-term stability.

Guaranteed retirement benefits from a private organization are enticing for us in Texas, especially since studies have indicated the depletion of Social Security funds in the near future.

The model shown by the three counties proves that we Texans can set up our own retirement and pension system, and do so successfully, despite secession by way of TEXIT.

What will happen to people who rely on Medicare after TEXIT?
https://tnm.me/category/texit/healthcare-social-services
Medicare is an incredibly important issue for many Texans who support Texas independence. We will not abandon Texans who rely on these kinds of services as the whole point of independence is to help Texans whose needs and values have been abandoned by the federal system. An independent Texan nation would need to set up our own version of the Medicare system for those who are already on Medicare or those close to nearing retirement age who would otherwise rely on the healthcare coverage provided by Medicare. With the $103 $160 billion we already overpay into the federal government this should not be too difficult. It's also important to note that this new system would run a lot smoother and be more flexible as it will be run by Texans and for Texans.

Texasjeremy said:

---

This might be able to address some of your concerns, hope this helps:

---

Thanks, but I'm really not too concerned. I'm a native who loves Texas, spent a lot of my life there, and would hate to have to enter a foreign country every time I came home to visit.

But I kind of hope they'll secede just so they'll stop pissing and moaning about it all the time.

Texasjeremy said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Texasjeremy said:

---

This might be able to address some of your concerns, hope this helps:

---

Thanks, but I'm really not too concerned. I'm a native who loves Texas, spent a lot of my life there, and would hate to have to enter a foreign country every time I came home to visit.

But I kind of hope they'll secede just so they'll stop pissing and moaning about it all the time.

---

Agreed. I do not know if I am for secession or not, I need a lot more information. This is why I am in favor of HB 1359, if passed it forces the state to go get concrete answers to many of our questions. Until this happens there will always be questions. As of now one side says Texas will be better off governing itself and another side says Texas can't survive without the federal government.

---

I clicked your links. All I can say is beware of the incredibly rosy scenarios they paint. And I'm not sure there are going to be any concrete answers so it will be possible for people to know exactly what they're getting into; stuff just seldom turns out that way.

In situations like this, it's useful to remember all the times that countries embarking on wars (1861 and 1914 come to mind) convinced themselves that the soldiers would all be home by Christmas.

J.B.Katz said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Texasjeremy said:

---

https://tnm.me/texit/can/didnt-the-supreme-court-declare-secession-unconstitutional

The entire legal argument for the unconstitutionality of States leaving the Union rests on the Supreme Court's decision in the 1869 case of Texas v. White. However, when it comes to Texas v. White, more and more academics are adopting the stance of historian Dr. Brion McClanahan. When asked that very question at an academic conference in Florida, his response was an indignant, "So what?"

Dr. McClanahan's attitude toward Texas v. White is not based on a denial of facts. In fact, contrary to the concrete pronouncements by Texit detractors, the decision in Texas v. White has been debated and debunked extensively starting from the moment Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase issued the majority opinion.

The dissenting opinion, issued by Justice Robert C. Grier, highlighted many of the deficiencies of the Supreme Court's ruling, stating that he disagreed "on all points raised and decided." The assertions made by Chase were so offensive to his contemporaries that Union and Confederate sympathizers, both fresh from the battlefields and still harboring deep divisions, were united in their contempt for his ruling.

Bristling at the usurpation by the judiciary of the power to determine political questions, Lyman Trumbull, a United States senator from Illinois, introduced legislation that, in part, stated, "Under the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States does not embrace political power, or give to judicial tribunals any authority to question the political departments of the Government on political questions."

There is no doubt that Chief Justice Chase, an appointee of Abraham Lincoln, used the opportunity presented by Texas v. White to stamp a retroactive "seal of approval" on the federal government's policies and actions during the Civil War. To do so, Chase had to rewrite history and virtually all established law on the subject.

To reinforce his belief that the United States was a "perpetual union," he had to assert the ludicrous argument that the United States Constitution was merely an amending document to the previous Articles of Confederation, citing the Preamble to the Constitution. He then had to ignore that it only took 9 States of the original 13 to ratify the Constitution of 1787 and that, had less than 13 States ratified, it would have destroyed the "perpetual union" allegedly created by the Articles of Confederation.

To reinforce his assertion that the United States was an "indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States," Chase had to ignore the existence of West Virginia, and the agreement with the Republic of Texas upon its admission, that it could divide into 4 additional States and that those additional States would be guaranteed admission into the Union if they so chose.

To reinforce his assertion that States, upon entering the Union, gave up all rights of sovereignty and became incorporated in a single, monolithic superstate, Chase had to ignore every reference to the States as individual political entities in the Declaration of Independence, the aforementioned Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, the United States Constitution, and all intent of the framers, clearly expressed in the period.

In his zeal to confirm the supremacy of the Union, Chase ascribed qualities to it that are usually reserved for deities. In effect, he equated the Union to God and established a quasi-religious orthodoxy that requires adherence to a doctrine that elevates the federal government to godhood, its three branches to the Holy Trinity, and the judiciary as its holy priesthood.

There is no doubt that, had the States been exposed to Chase's logic during deliberations over the ratification of the Constitution, they would have soundly rejected it and likely drafted a new Declaration of Independence.

The Supreme Court was not and never will be perfect. Some of the most heinous, morally reprehensible, logically flawed decisions have emanated from the Supreme Court. To imbue it with infallibility is to say that, when it upheld slave catching or when it upheld racial segregation, it was right. Yet decisions by the Court in both of those instances have been overturned.

Even Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in the 1904 case of Northern Securities Co. v. United States, recognized that the Court could be caught up in the politics and passions of the day and render bad decisions.

"Great cases like hard cases make bad law. For great cases are called great, not by reason of their importance but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment."

With all its obvious flaws, some academics continue to point to Texas v. White as the "silver bullet" that handles all questions related to States separating from the Union. However, others tend to glide over it so as not to have to acknowledge its most significant problem.

Embracing Texas v. White requires one to believe the last 150 years never happened. Since 1869, the world kept spinning. Generations have come and gone, and the Supreme Court has continued to issue rulings that chip away at the foundations of Texas v. White. As the entirety of Chase's determination is predicated on the claim that "perpetual union" is the "more perfect union" spoken of in the Preamble of the Constitution, the single ruling by the Court in the 1905 case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, where it was determined that the federal government can gain no powers based on the Preamble, could utterly destroy Texas v. White.

The federal government's position on self-determination has evolved to the point of signing international agreements, covenants, and treaties pledging to respect the right of self-determination. The same chorus of voices who declare that Texas v. White is the "end all, be all" of decisions on the matter of self-determination of the States are the same voices who declare that subsequent rulings by the Supreme Court obligate the federal government and the States to give treaty obligations, such as those dealing with self-determination, the same weight as constitutional law and argue for its application as such.

Ultimately, though, any question of self-determination is political in nature. It is not, and never will be, a judicial question.

---

All of this was resolved in 1864. The rest of the country isn't going to allow Texit.

---

Given that Texas has gifted Congress with Ted Cruz, Louie Gohmert and a while back Tom Delay (still remember cringing when he shook his big square butt on Dancing with the Stars) among other idiots and *******s, plenty of other states would say hasta la vista baby.

But it would be a complicated divorce and at least half of Texans dont want the kind of govt Jeremy Curt and Shooter think Jesus and Trump wants yall to have.

---

Hmmmm....Jinx?

bubbadog said:

---

Texasjeremy said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Texasjeremy said:

---

This might be able to address some of your concerns, hope this helps:

---

Thanks, but I'm really not too concerned. I'm a native who loves Texas, spent a lot of my life there, and would hate to have to enter a foreign country every time I came home to visit.

But I kind of hope they'll secede just so they'll stop pissing and moaning about it all the time.

---

Agreed. I do not know if I am for secession or not, I need a lot more information. This is why I am in favor of HB 1359, if passed it forces the state to go get concrete answers to many of our questions. Until this happens there will always be questions. As of now one side says Texas will be better off governing itself and another side says Texas can't survive without the federal government.

---

I clicked your links. All I can say is beware of the incredibly rosy scenarios they paint. And I'm not sure there are going to be any concrete answers so it will be possible for people to know exactly what they're getting into; stuff just seldom turns out that way.

In situations like this, it's useful to remember all the times that countries embarking on wars (1861 and 1914 come to mind) convinced themselves that the soldiers would all be home by Christmas.

---

Like I said, I want more information and the only way to really get that is for HB 1359 to pass. I totally agree that you can't just look at best case scenarios (its not always going to be perfect), but I also am not willing to have the attitude of "it might be hard, so I am not going to try".

If interested in finding out more.

UPCOMING TEXIT EVENTS

JAN 30-31 - FORT WORTH (Will Rogers Memorial Center - 3401 W. Lancaster Ave))
8:30AM - 6PM
Outreach Event

FEB 2 - KOSSE (Kosse Community Center - 200 TX-14))
6PM-8:30PM
Guest Speaker - Daniel Miller (President of the Texas National Movement)

FEB 4 - tnm.me
7:30PM-8:30PM
Monthly Q&A with TNM President Daniel Miller

FEB 6 - LONGVIEW (Corner of Spur 63 & Loop 281)
10AM-11:30AM
TNM Flag Wave Outreach Event

FEB 6 - WACO (Corner of Valley Mills Dr. & Waco Dr.)
11AM-2PM
TNM Flag Wave Outreach Event

FEB 13 - MIDLOTHIAN (2040 FM 663)
11AM-2PM
TNM Flag Wave Outreach Event

FEB 13 - SAN ANTONIO (The Alamo)
6:30PM-7:30PM
Alamo Memorial March

FEB 20 - ARLINGTON (3000 South Cooper St.)
11AM-2PM
TNM Flag Wave Outreach Event

FEB 20 - PARIS (Magel's Grill - 3805 NE Loop 286)
6PM-8PM
TNM Meet & Greet

MARCH 4 - tnm.me
7:30PM-8:30PM
Monthly Q&A with TNM President Daniel Miller

MARCH 6 - TYLER (Traditions - 6205 South Broadway Ave.)
5:30PM-7:30PM
TNM Meet & Greet

MARCH 13 - ROCKDALE (Rockdale Country Club - 1894 FM 2116)
3PM-5PM
Guest Speaker - Daniel Miller (President of the Texas National Movement)

MARCH 13 - LONGVIEW (Posados - 110 Triple Creek Dr.)
6PM-8PM
TNM Meet & Greet

MARCH 13 - SAN ANTONIO (The Alamo)
6:30PM-7:30PM
Alamo Memorial March

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

fubar said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Texasjeremy said:

---

Keep in mind, if it were to get on the ballot and pass, they would then form a committee to spend 2 years investigating if its feasible. Think of it like Brexit, once it passed the voters it took awhile before they were able to separate themselves. Not saying they are right or wrong, but if Texas would be better off, it is at the very least worth looking into.

---

Let's be real about this. They don't need a committee to investigate whether secession is feasible (along with the old idea of dividing into 5 states). You could make 5 quick phone calls to constitutional law experts and get the answer, which is no.

This is not about helping the people of Texas make a more informed decision. This is just about scoring political points, and wasting taxpayer money in the process.

---

I think you are wrong about Texas being able to divide into 5 states.

Revisionist History has a great podcast on this. I'll track it down and post for you

---

I believe Texas did have that option when it was first admitted in 1845.

People seem to forget that Texas was admitted a second time, and I doubt that provision about dividing was in there that time.

---

This law review article says Texas can divide & we already have permission from the US Congress to do so.
http://revisionisthistory.com/pdfs/Kesavan_Paulsen.pdf

---

What would you gain from division?

---

I'm not at the point I'm willing to secede but, I think the details need to be looked at now to see what we'd be up against during and after Texit. I think it's akin to reviewing your options before removing that benign tumor.

---

Since this all speculative anyway, I'll go ahead and speculate what would happen in the wake of a Texit:

Texas would immediately become a lot more like Mexico than a lot of Texans would like: poorer, weaker, and with a worse quality of life for many of its citizens.

Poorer: Texas is a net recipient of federal money, receiving more back from Washington than it contributes in taxes. State's economy still heavily affected by oil prices -- not a great industry to bet on for the long term, especially with GM's announcement yesterday.

Weaker: US military pullout from Ft. Hood, Ft. Bliss, AF bases in San Antonio, Brook Army Medical Center removes a lot of jobs and economic infusion now coming into the state. Besides Texas now having to foot the bill for its own defense, I presume the state would have to negotiate to purchase the land for those bases.

Quality of life: In Texas, 4.4 million people (mostly children) received Medicaid assistance. Somehow I doubt that independent Texas would provide anything close to the social safety net that people now have. That may be just fine with a majority of Texans, but it means they'll also have to live with more people on the margins, with poorer health outcomes, etc. Would Texans lose their Social Security and Medicare benefits that they've paid into the system but haven't accessed yet? Those could be negotiated in some type of Texit treaty, but if Texas simply votes to secede, I don't see that Congress is obliged to give that money back.

---

So, keeping with my same analogy, if the growth of the benign tumor is not at the point where surgery is needed, does that mean the plan would be to let it continue unchecked or to, in some other way, shrink it or limit its growth?

This analogy is why I think even the idea of the referendum is a good thing. It may motivate some in the federal government to get their act together and fix some things.

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Texasjeremy said:

---

https://tnm.me/texit/can/didnt-the-supreme-court-declare-secession-unconstitutional

The entire legal argument for the unconstitutionality of States leaving the Union rests on the Supreme Court's decision in the 1869 case of Texas v. White. However, when it comes to Texas v. White, more and more academics are adopting the stance of historian Dr. Brion McClanahan. When asked that very question at an academic conference in Florida, his response was an indignant, "So what?"

Dr. McClanahan's attitude toward Texas v. White is not based on a denial of facts. In fact, contrary to the concrete pronouncements by Texit detractors, the decision in Texas v. White has been debated and debunked extensively starting from the moment Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase issued the majority opinion.

The dissenting opinion, issued by Justice Robert C. Grier, highlighted many of the deficiencies of the Supreme Court's ruling, stating that he disagreed "on all points raised and decided." The assertions made by Chase were so offensive to his contemporaries that Union and Confederate sympathizers, both fresh from the battlefields and still harboring deep divisions, were united in their contempt for his ruling.

Bristling at the usurpation by the judiciary of the power to determine political questions, Lyman Trumbull, a United States senator from Illinois, introduced legislation that, in part, stated, "Under the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States does not embrace political power, or give to judicial tribunals any authority to question the political departments of the Government on political questions."

There is no doubt that Chief Justice Chase, an appointee of Abraham Lincoln, used the opportunity presented by Texas v. White to stamp a retroactive "seal of approval" on the federal government's policies and actions during the Civil War. To do so, Chase had to rewrite history and virtually all established law on the subject.

To reinforce his belief that the United States was a "perpetual union," he had to assert the ludicrous argument that the United States Constitution was merely an amending document to the previous Articles of Confederation, citing the Preamble to the Constitution. He then had to ignore that it only took 9 States of the original 13 to ratify the Constitution of 1787 and that, had less than 13 States ratified, it would have destroyed the "perpetual union" allegedly created by the Articles of Confederation.

To reinforce his assertion that the United States was an "indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States," Chase had to ignore the existence of West Virginia, and the agreement with the Republic of Texas upon its admission, that it could divide into 4 additional States and that those additional States would be guaranteed admission into the Union if they so chose.

To reinforce his assertion that States, upon entering the Union, gave up all rights of sovereignty and became incorporated in a single, monolithic superstate, Chase had to ignore every reference to the States as individual political entities in the Declaration of Independence, the aforementioned Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, the United States Constitution, and all intent of the framers, clearly expressed in the period.

In his zeal to confirm the supremacy of the Union, Chase ascribed qualities to it that are usually reserved for deities. In effect, he equated the Union to God and established a quasi-religious orthodoxy that requires adherence to a doctrine that elevates the federal government to godhood, its three branches to the Holy Trinity, and the judiciary as its holy priesthood.

There is no doubt that, had the States been exposed to Chase's logic during deliberations over the ratification of the Constitution, they would have soundly rejected it and likely drafted a new Declaration of Independence.

The Supreme Court was not and never will be perfect. Some of the most heinous, morally reprehensible, logically flawed decisions have emanated from the Supreme Court. To imbue it with infallibility is to say that, when it upheld slave catching or when it upheld racial segregation, it was right. Yet decisions by the Court in both of those instances have been overturned.

Even Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in the 1904 case of Northern Securities Co. v. United States, recognized that the Court could be caught up in the politics and passions of the day and render bad decisions.

"Great cases like hard cases make bad law. For great cases are called great, not by reason of their importance but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment."

With all its obvious flaws, some academics continue to point to Texas v. White as the "silver bullet" that handles all questions related to States separating from the Union. However, others tend to glide over it so as not to have to acknowledge its most significant problem.

Embracing Texas v. White requires one to believe the last 150 years never happened. Since 1869, the world kept spinning. Generations have come and gone, and the Supreme Court has continued to issue rulings that chip away at the foundations of Texas v. White. As the entirety of Chase's determination is predicated on the claim that "perpetual union" is the "more perfect union" spoken of in the Preamble of the Constitution, the single ruling by the Court in the 1905 case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, where it was determined that the federal government can gain no powers based on the Preamble, could utterly destroy Texas v. White.

The federal government's position on self-determination has evolved to the point of signing international agreements, covenants, and treaties pledging to respect the right of self-determination. The same chorus of voices who declare that Texas v. White is the "end all, be all" of decisions on the matter of self-determination of the States are the same voices who declare that subsequent rulings by the Supreme Court obligate the federal government and the States to give treaty obligations, such as those dealing with self-determination, the same weight as constitutional law and argue for its application as such.

Ultimately, though, any question of self-determination is political in nature. It is not, and never will be, a judicial question.

---

All of this was resolved in 1864. The rest of the country isn't going to allow Texit.

---

Given that Texas has gifted Congress with Ted Cruz, Louie Gohmert and a while back Tom Delay (still remember cringing when he shook his big square butt on Dancing with the Stars) among other idiots and *******s, plenty of other states would say hasta la vista baby.

But it would be a complicated divorce and at least half of Texans dont want the kind of govt Jeremy Curt and Shooter think Jesus and Trump wants yall to have.

---

Hmmmm....Jinx?

---

Tone says "yes". Word count says "not a snowball's chance".

Carlos Safety said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

tommie said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Last time we tried this they shot two of my great uncles at Shiloh. I am for it
but not enough to die like they did. Damn Grant and Ape.

---

Not to derail this thread (although it could probably use it), but have you ever read Tony Horwitz's Confederates in the Attic? He has a great chapter about being at Shiloh before dawn on the anniversary of the battle.

My wife's uncle had a farm about 5 miles from Shiloh. The government leased out some of the land within the military park to him and other local farmers. I've walked that battlefield many times.

---

Not to further derail this thread, but if Texas did somehow become independent, would I now be an illegal alien if I tried to drive into the United States.

That would be a bummer, I really like NM and other states nearby.

---

You'd probably need a passport and see your buying power in New Mexico halfed.

---

What is there to buy in New Mexico?

This might give Colorado an opportunity to keep out of control Texans of the slopes by refusing to let them cross the border.

---

This raises another question. Can Texas reclaim its original borders taking back parts of New Mexico and Colorado? We wouldn't be a real country without an Olympic ski team.

---

I think we sold that land already or traded it in exchange for the feds assuming Republic of Texas debt. A deal is a deal.

---

I guess not Olympic ski team then.

J.B.Katz said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

tommie said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Last time we tried this they shot two of my great uncles at Shiloh. I am for it
but not enough to die like they did. Damn Grant and Ape.

---

Not to derail this thread (although it could probably use it), but have you ever read Tony Horwitz's Confederates in the Attic? He has a great chapter about being at Shiloh before dawn on the anniversary of the battle.

My wife's uncle had a farm about 5 miles from Shiloh. The government leased out some of the land within the military park to him and other local farmers. I've walked that battlefield many times.

---

Not to further derail this thread, but if Texas did somehow become independent, would I now be an illegal alien if I tried to drive into the United States.

That would be a bummer, I really like NM and other states nearby.

---

You'd probably need a passport and see your buying power in New Mexico halfed.

---

What is there to buy in New Mexico?

This might give Colorado an opportunity to keep out of control Texans of the slopes by refusing to let them cross the border.

---

This raises another question. Can Texas reclaim its original borders taking back parts of New Mexico and Colorado? We wouldn't be a real country without an Olympic ski team.

---

Coloradans would probably give you Bohberts district.

---

Ironically, most of her district falls within the part of Colorado that was once within Texas. What does that tell us?

Texasjeremy said:

---

---

It's those words "subject only to the Constitution of the United States" in the Texas Constitution that trip you up on your theory. 'Subject only to' is pretty definitive.

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Midnight Rider said:

---

There's a certain contradiction between loving your country and wanting to secede from it.

---

Not at all.

This is not MY Republican Party

This is not MY Democratic Party

This is not MY Episcopal church

This is not MY Baylor University

This is not MY drug-addicted spouse

This is not MY America

All of the things listed above provide opportunities to change or influence them in a positive manner and while in a position of deeper involvement. However, at a certain point, individuals will decide for themselves that the point of positive influence no longer exist and it is time to exit that relationship. It doesn't mean that the love is gone but, it may mean that the disgust outweighs that love.

---

I've chosen to stay a Republican. I've been one all my life and I'm old. My party needs moderates whether the Trumpers want us or not.

I'm watching the fallout from the stunt Kelli WArd pulled in AZ with censuring Cindy McCain, jeff Flake and Doug Ducey. I was hoping Ward wouldnt be reelected and it was close but not enough.

---

Tough decisions require and ABSOLUTELY deserve extreme contemplation. No fault divorce is a bad thing. No fault Texit would be worse.

---

There is no legal mechanism for leaving the union.

---

I don't think there needs to be anything in writing providing for a split. It is a basic right that if a people no longer want to be part of the existing political, social compact, then they should be free to leave. Our Founding Fathers did not wait for Parliament to approve their decision to divorce from Great Britain. If Texas wants to have a Texodus, then we are allowed as a free people to exit the existing political and social compact we have with what have become our masters in DC.

---

That's what Texas thought in 1861. The rest of the country isn't going to look at it any different in 2021. And what if Mexico decides it want's its territory back?

---

What if Spain decides it wants its territory back?

Political power grows from the barrel of a gun. - Mao

---

They'd have to have a bigger gun than the 'United States' have wouldn't they?

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Texasjeremy said:

---

https://tnm.me/texit/can/didnt-the-supreme-court-declare-secession-unconstitutional

The entire legal argument for the unconstitutionality of States leaving the Union rests on the Supreme Court's decision in the 1869 case of Texas v. White. However, when it comes to Texas v. White, more and more academics are adopting the stance of historian Dr. Brion McClanahan. When asked that very question at an academic conference in Florida, his response was an indignant, "So what?"

Dr. McClanahan's attitude toward Texas v. White is not based on a denial of facts. In fact, contrary to the concrete pronouncements by Texit detractors, the decision in Texas v. White has been debated and debunked extensively starting from the moment Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase issued the majority opinion.

The dissenting opinion, issued by Justice Robert C. Grier, highlighted many of the deficiencies of the Supreme Court's ruling, stating that he disagreed "on all points raised and decided." The assertions made by Chase were so offensive to his contemporaries that Union and Confederate sympathizers, both fresh from the battlefields and still harboring deep divisions, were united in their contempt for his ruling.

Bristling at the usurpation by the judiciary of the power to determine political questions, Lyman Trumbull, a United States senator from Illinois, introduced legislation that, in part, stated, "Under the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States does not embrace political power, or give to judicial tribunals any authority to question the political departments of the Government on political questions."

There is no doubt that Chief Justice Chase, an appointee of Abraham Lincoln, used the opportunity presented by Texas v. White to stamp a retroactive "seal of approval" on the federal government's policies and actions during the Civil War. To do so, Chase had to rewrite history and virtually all established law on the subject.

To reinforce his belief that the United States was a "perpetual union," he had to assert the ludicrous argument that the United States Constitution was merely an amending document to the previous Articles of Confederation, citing the Preamble to the Constitution. He then had to ignore that it only took 9 States of the original 13 to ratify the Constitution of 1787 and that, had less than 13 States ratified, it would have destroyed the "perpetual union" allegedly created by the Articles of Confederation.

To reinforce his assertion that the United States was an "indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States," Chase had to ignore the existence of West Virginia, and the agreement with the Republic of Texas upon its admission, that it could divide into 4 additional States and that those additional States would be guaranteed admission into the Union if they so chose.

To reinforce his assertion that States, upon entering the Union, gave up all rights of sovereignty and became incorporated in a single, monolithic superstate, Chase had to ignore every reference to the States as individual political entities in the Declaration of Independence, the aforementioned Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, the United States Constitution, and all intent of the framers, clearly expressed in the period.

In his zeal to confirm the supremacy of the Union, Chase ascribed qualities to it that are usually reserved for deities. In effect, he equated the Union to God and established a quasi-religious orthodoxy that requires adherence to a doctrine that elevates the federal government to godhood, its three branches to the Holy Trinity, and the judiciary as its holy priesthood.

There is no doubt that, had the States been exposed to Chase's logic during deliberations over the ratification of the Constitution, they would have soundly rejected it and likely drafted a new Declaration of Independence.

The Supreme Court was not and never will be perfect. Some of the most heinous, morally reprehensible, logically flawed decisions have emanated from the Supreme Court. To imbue it with infallibility is to say that, when it upheld slave catching or when it upheld racial segregation, it was right. Yet decisions by the Court in both of those instances have been overturned.

Even Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in the 1904 case of Northern Securities Co. v. United States, recognized that the Court could be caught up in the politics and passions of the day and render bad decisions.

"Great cases like hard cases make bad law. For great cases are called great, not by reason of their importance but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment."

With all its obvious flaws, some academics continue to point to Texas v. White as the "silver bullet" that handles all questions related to States separating from the Union. However, others tend to glide over it so as not to have to acknowledge its most significant problem.

Embracing Texas v. White requires one to believe the last 150 years never happened. Since 1869, the world kept spinning. Generations have come and gone, and the Supreme Court has continued to issue rulings that chip away at the foundations of Texas v. White. As the entirety of Chase's determination is predicated on the claim that "perpetual union" is the "more perfect union" spoken of in the Preamble of the Constitution, the single ruling by the Court in the 1905 case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, where it was determined that the federal government can gain no powers based on the Preamble, could utterly destroy Texas v. White.

The federal government's position on self-determination has evolved to the point of signing international agreements, covenants, and treaties pledging to respect the right of self-determination. The same chorus of voices who declare that Texas v. White is the "end all, be all" of decisions on the matter of self-determination of the States are the same voices who declare that subsequent rulings by the Supreme Court obligate the federal government and the States to give treaty obligations, such as those dealing with self-determination, the same weight as constitutional law and argue for its application as such.

Ultimately, though, any question of self-determination is political in nature. It is not, and never will be, a judicial question.

---

All of this was resolved in 1864. The rest of the country isn't going to allow Texit.

---

I thought the idea of of Independence and secession was settled in 1776?

Its a good thing. All the founding fathers were for it.

---

It wasn't so good in 1864. Reconstruction is not such a 'good thing.'

Texasjeremy said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

fubar said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Texasjeremy said:

---

Keep in mind, if it were to get on the ballot and pass, they would then form a committee to spend 2 years investigating if its feasible. Think of it like Brexit, once it passed the voters it took awhile before they were able to separate themselves. Not saying they are right or wrong, but if Texas would be better off, it is at the very least worth looking into.

---

Let's be real about this. They don't need a committee to investigate whether secession is feasible (along with the old idea of dividing into 5 states). You could make 5 quick phone calls to constitutional law experts and get the answer, which is no.

This is not about helping the people of Texas make a more informed decision. This is just about scoring political points, and wasting taxpayer money in the process.

---

I think you are wrong about Texas being able to divide into 5 states.

Revisionist History has a great podcast on this. I'll track it down and post for you

---

I believe Texas did have that option when it was first admitted in 1845.

People seem to forget that Texas was admitted a second time, and I doubt that provision about dividing was in there that time.

---

This law review article says Texas can divide & we already have permission from the US Congress to do so.
http://revisionisthistory.com/pdfs/Kesavan_Paulsen.pdf

---

What would you gain from division?

---

I'm not at the point I'm willing to secede but, I think the details need to be looked at now to see what we'd be up against during and after Texit. I think it's akin to reviewing your options before removing that benign tumor.

---

Since this all speculative anyway, I'll go ahead and speculate what would happen in the wake of a Texit:

Texas would immediately become a lot more like Mexico than a lot of Texans would like: poorer, weaker, and with a worse quality of life for many of its citizens.

Poorer: Texas is a net recipient of federal money, receiving more back from Washington than it contributes in taxes. State's economy still heavily affected by oil prices -- not a great industry to bet on for the long term, especially with GM's announcement yesterday.

Weaker: US military pullout from Ft. Hood, Ft. Bliss, AF bases in San Antonio, Brook Army Medical Center removes a lot of jobs and economic infusion now coming into the state. Besides Texas now having to foot the bill for its own defense, I presume the state would have to negotiate to purchase the land for those bases.

Quality of life: In Texas, 4.4 million people (mostly children) received Medicaid assistance. Somehow I doubt that independent Texas would provide anything close to the social safety net that people now have. That may be just fine with a majority of Texans, but it means they'll also have to live with more people on the margins, with poorer health outcomes, etc. Would Texans lose their Social Security and Medicare benefits that they've paid into the system but haven't accessed yet? Those could be negotiated in some type of Texit treaty, but if Texas simply votes to secede, I don't see that Congress is obliged to give that money back.

---

The point of HB 1359 is not to seceed, but to allow Texans to vote to allow the state to get more clarification on many topics regarding independence.

This might be able to address some of your concerns, hope this helps:

Will Texas be able to fund the government after TEXIT?
https://tnm.me/texit/government/will-texas-be-able-to-fund-the-government-after-texit
Simple arithmetic proves the ability of an independent Texas to fund a government at the same level that Texans are currently accustomed to if that's what Texans want.

Texans currently pay, in all, federal and state taxes an average of $336 billion per year. This represents the total amount of revenue readily available to an independent Texas without increasing the financial burden on Texans one single cent. From that amount, subtract the amount spent by both the federal government and state government in Texas. $228 billion is the average amount of expenditures required to maintain every program, every job (both civilian and military), every department, every facility (including military bases), and fulfill every function (including current federal contract spending to Texas companies) provided by the federal and state governments. This level of government revenue would rank Texas 12th in the world for government revenue collected.

Will the economy in an independent Texas be better?
https://tnm.me/texit/business-commerce-trade/will-the-economy-in-an-independent-texas-be-better
On average, Texas ranks as having the 10th largest economy in the world. There is no doubt that an independent Texas will do better.

To quote the conservative firebrand and Texit advocate, Claver Kamau-Imani, "After Texit, we're gonna be rich!" He's not exaggerating. Texas already collectively possesses a fair amount of wealth as one of the largest economies in the world. However, Texit promises to bring that wealth to every citizen of Texas. In exploring the negative effect of excessive federal regulations on Texans, the cited study showed how it has shrunk the paychecks of Texans by 75 percent. Flip the script and look at it from the standpoint of a Texas no longer subjected to those excessive federal regulations. Over time, the average Texan could see a 400 percent increase in take-home pay.

The retention of this type of wealth by Texans translates into an explosion of new business startups and corporate expansions, reducing unemployment to near zero. Texas can experience double-digit economic growth as the lack of an income tax turns Texas into an international haven for wealth and foreign investment. All of this economic activity results in an increase in government revenue, leading to better schools, improved infrastructure, and additional tax breaks.

The best data available shows a correlation between increased consumer spending and an increase in household income at a near 1:1 ratio. With these kinds of numbers, Texas could eliminate the property tax, leave the sales tax rate untouched, and still produce an increase in government revenue over and above what Texans currently pay to both the state and federal governments.

What will happen to all of the U.S. military bases after TEXIT?
https://tnm.me/texit/defense-national-security/what-will-happen-to-all-of-the-u-s-military-bases-after-texit
Texas is currently home to 15 military installations with an economic impact of around $150 billion. However, the military installations account for only $14 billion in federal payroll spending in Texas. In addition, there are currently more than 118,000 Texans on active duty status across all branches of the military. These are not insignificant figures.

However, it is important not to conflate the issues of military presence and political union. The United States maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad. No one would argue that those 70 countries are in a political union with the United States due to the presence of a U.S. military base, nor would anyone argue that they should be. The presence of these military bases on foreign soil is solely about shared defense concerns and security interests. It does not imply any further political connection.

After a Texit, Texas may not share a government with the rest of the United States, but we will still share defense and national security concerns. International military cooperation has been a cornerstone of U.S. defense policy since the Second World War and, while it has been suggested that there should be some reforms, the underlying policy is unlikely to change, especially close to home.

It is, therefore, highly probable that Texas would enter into a mutual defense pact with the United States that includes joint use and operation of existing military bases and facilities in Texas or their full transfer to the Texas Military Department. As a part of any mutual defense pact, Texas will likely have to pledge to spend a set percentage of its GDP on national defense, much like the reforms proposed for NATO. In return, the United States should guarantee the availability of military arms and equipment for tariff-free purchase by manufacturers in the United States and vice versa. Texas should stipulate that the mutual defense pact should only extend to commonly agreed defense concerns.

Any mutual defense pact of this nature could set a transition period where things essentially stay as they are now, operating under a joint command until such time as the already established Texas Military Forces are at full readiness.

What could replace Social Security in an independent Texas?
https://tnm.me/texit/healthcare-social-services/what-could-replace-social-security-in-an-independent-texas
Although those currently receiving Social Security payments would continue to do so in an independent Texas, the question becomes one of what a replacement system could look like in an independent Texas.

Fortunately, Texas is already leading the way with concrete examples of what a Social Security replacement could look like.

Three counties in Texas have shown the public that they can opt-out of Social Security by setting up their own system for personal retirement accounts. This decision has allowed these counties to avoid any financial concerns and has even provided their retirees with a higher amount of retirement income.

Employees of Brazoria, Matagorda, and Galveston County have experienced a growth in retirement savings annually. Under their model, both employee and employer contributions are handled by a financial planner. The agency "First Financial Benefits Inc." of Houston currently manages their retirement accounts and has done so since the system's inception in 1981.

All of the contributions are collected, similar to bank deposits, and financial institutions begin bidding on the money. These same institutions guarantee that interest rates will not go down to a certain level, and may even go higher if everything goes smoothly in the market.

Under this model, accounts are able to earn between 3.75% and 5.75% each year, averaging at about 5% overall. This rate was even higher during the 1990s when it reached up to 7%. Ultimately, employees make more money when the market is up but will still earn something even when it goes down.

These "Texas Model" in these three counties has consistently outperformed the federal system with better returns and greater long-term stability.

Guaranteed retirement benefits from a private organization are enticing for us in Texas, especially since studies have indicated the depletion of Social Security funds in the near future.

The model shown by the three counties proves that we Texans can set up our own retirement and pension system, and do so successfully, despite secession by way of TEXIT.

What will happen to people who rely on Medicare after TEXIT?
https://tnm.me/category/texit/healthcare-social-services
Medicare is an incredibly important issue for many Texans who support Texas independence. We will not abandon Texans who rely on these kinds of services as the whole point of independence is to help Texans whose needs and values have been abandoned by the federal system. An independent Texan nation would need to set up our own version of the Medicare system for those who are already on Medicare or those close to nearing retirement age who would otherwise rely on the healthcare coverage provided by Medicare. With the $103 $160 billion we already overpay into the federal government this should not be too difficult. It's also important to note that this new system would run a lot smoother and be more flexible as it will be run by Texans and for Texans.

---

Hmmm. Sounds pretty much like we'd have all the benefits of a state. Why leave?

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Midnight Rider said:

---

There's a certain contradiction between loving your country and wanting to secede from it.

---

Not at all.

This is not MY Republican Party

This is not MY Democratic Party

This is not MY Episcopal church

This is not MY Baylor University

This is not MY drug-addicted spouse

This is not MY America

All of the things listed above provide opportunities to change or influence them in a positive manner and while in a position of deeper involvement. However, at a certain point, individuals will decide for themselves that the point of positive influence no longer exist and it is time to exit that relationship. It doesn't mean that the love is gone but, it may mean that the disgust outweighs that love.

---

I've chosen to stay a Republican. I've been one all my life and I'm old. My party needs moderates whether the Trumpers want us or not.

I'm watching the fallout from the stunt Kelli WArd pulled in AZ with censuring Cindy McCain, jeff Flake and Doug Ducey. I was hoping Ward wouldnt be reelected and it was close but not enough.

---

Tough decisions require and ABSOLUTELY deserve extreme contemplation. No fault divorce is a bad thing. No fault Texit would be worse.

---

There is no legal mechanism for leaving the union.

---

I don't think there needs to be anything in writing providing for a split. It is a basic right that if a people no longer want to be part of the existing political, social compact, then they should be free to leave. Our Founding Fathers did not wait for Parliament to approve their decision to divorce from Great Britain. If Texas wants to have a Texodus, then we are allowed as a free people to exit the existing political and social compact we have with what have become our masters in DC.

---

That's what Texas thought in 1861. The rest of the country isn't going to look at it any different in 2021. And what if Mexico decides it want's its territory back?

---

What if Spain decides it wants its territory back?

Political power grows from the barrel of a gun. - Mao

---

They'd have to have a bigger gun than the 'United States' have wouldn't they?

---

The term "asymmetric" mean anything to you?

I'd like to echo what Russell Gym said:
" When you write something so over-the-top crazy, expecting people to laugh, but instead it is taken seriously ... you know we are in troubling times. Godspeed to all offended."
Amen and awoman

https://kylebiedermann.com/texit-faq/

What does the Texas Independence Referendum Act (TIRA) do?
Should TIRA be passed by the Texas Legislature and approved by voters in the November 2021 Election, an interim joint committee will be established to study and make recommendations regarding the most effective method for Texas to return to its status as an independent republic. The committee will be composed of four State Senators and four State Representatives appointed by the Lt. Gov and House Speaker, who will also respectively serve as co-chairs for the committee. Not later than December 31st, 2022, the committee shall report any findings and recommendations to the Texas Legislature and the citizens of Texas.

Is this un-American and un-patriotic?
Supporters for Texas Independence love America, our flag and our Constitution. Our grievances are not with America but with an out-of-control Federal Government. It would be un-American and unpatriotic to not make our voices heard and fail to preserve the liberty our Founding Fathers established with their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.

Can we use Article V Convention of States instead of leaving?
It will be the job of the interim joint committee to pursue all potential avenues that would return power back to the states and to the people, including Article V Convention of States.

How can we become citizens of the Republic of Texas?
Obtaining citizenship will be determined by the Texas Legislature's joint interim committee as the plan for independence is formulated.

What would happen to Social Security dollars Texans have paid into the system?
Any Texan who has paid into the Social Security system and is currently receiving benefits should continue to receive them. This is an obligation of the federal government to those who paid into the system and should, therefore, be met without question, hesitation, or reservation. The federal government allows Social Security recipients to move to a foreign country and still collect their benefits. Additionally, those who have paid in should be able to preserve their accrued benefits for exactly the same reason. This will be included as a topic of discussion for the joint interim committee.

What would happen to veteran benefits?
If you are a Veteran who lives abroad, you remain entitled to the benefits and services you earned through your military service. Most VA benefits are payable regardless of your place of residence or nationality.
Source: Veterans Administration

What would Texas do for national defense?
Using the NATO target average of 2 percent of GDP for military and defense spending would provide approximately $37.74 billion annually, making Texas 11th in the world in defense spending. Funding at this level would cover the costs of recruiting, training, equipping, and maintaining an active duty enlistment in excess of 125,000 troops. This would be in line with the number of Texans currently serving in the United States military in all branches.

How may I help?
Call and email your State Representatives and State Senators asking them to co-author this important bill for the state of Texas and bring this bill to a vote. Finally, sign our petition below or at: https://kylebiedermann.com/texit-petition. If you would like to volunteer, sign up here: https://kylebiedermann.com/texit-volunteers/

For more FAQs on the Texas Independence Referendum Act, please visit TNM.me.

Disclaimer: These sentiments on forming the Independent Republic of Texas have been discussed and researched by experts on the subject, however, there is no guaranteed outcome to negotiations that would take place between Texas and the U.S. government.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Midnight Rider said:

---

There's a certain contradiction between loving your country and wanting to secede from it.

---

Not at all.

This is not MY Republican Party

This is not MY Democratic Party

This is not MY Episcopal church

This is not MY Baylor University

This is not MY drug-addicted spouse

This is not MY America

All of the things listed above provide opportunities to change or influence them in a positive manner and while in a position of deeper involvement. However, at a certain point, individuals will decide for themselves that the point of positive influence no longer exist and it is time to exit that relationship. It doesn't mean that the love is gone but, it may mean that the disgust outweighs that love.

---

I've chosen to stay a Republican. I've been one all my life and I'm old. My party needs moderates whether the Trumpers want us or not.

I'm watching the fallout from the stunt Kelli WArd pulled in AZ with censuring Cindy McCain, jeff Flake and Doug Ducey. I was hoping Ward wouldnt be reelected and it was close but not enough.

---

The Democrats need the moderates, too. Please see what you can accomplish there.

Seriously. Go play with the social justice warriors for a while. perhaps it will give you new found appreciation for those you think so little of at the moment.

---

If mainstream normal Republicans leave the party, as some have, that leaves only the extreme radical right and a party that has no significance on a national scale.

---

Firstly, let's get the definitions right: data is clear that mainstream normal Republicans support Donald Trump, who has transformed the party coalition into a middle class, blue collar party which has demonstrated more appeal to minority groups than the GOP has enjoyed in decades.

The handful of establishment Republican virtue posturing fools like Flake and Sasse and McCain & such are not a significant piece of the party, and are vastly outnumbered by the new blood Trump has brought into the party. In 2016, fully a third of the delegates at the Texas GOP convention had never been involved in any party event before. Keep in mind, the Tx GOP convention is the largest political convention in the world, almost 9000 attendees, and it happens mid-week, so all these truckers & pipe fitters & such had to take vacation to attend. Trump literally inspired people who'd never been politically active before to engage, and it was the difference between success and failure.

I'm dead serious when I say the GOP neverTrumper crowd should join the Democrat Party. It's the Democrats who have left classical liberalism to embrace progressivism. It's the Democrats who have embraced socialism. It's the Democrats who embrace cancel culture. It's the Democrats who need to be moderated. So, seriously, please you and Romney and Team Moderate go moderate the Democrat Party for a change. If you are successful, we won't need DJT.

---

If you Trumpers want to form your own party, go for it. I hold out hope that more than a handful of Republcians are better than Trump.

The new blood you say he brought into the party aren't exactly deep thinkers. Some were ready to vote for Bernie. Some will only follow Trump and if he's out of hte picture so are they.

https://tnm.me/news/political/another-state-representative-comes-out-in-support-of-texit-referendum?goal=0_244a299551-c00017bbbb-321222798&mc_cid=c00017bbbb&mc_eid=48f1016e01

Another State Representative Comes Out In Support of TEXIT Referendum
At a recent speaking event, bestselling author and CEO David Thomas Roberts asked State Representative Steve Toth about whether or not he supports HB 1359 that gives Texans a vote on TEXIT. Here was his response.

Speaking on election integrity, bestselling author, CEO, and member of the Texas Nationalist Movement's Advisory Board David Thomas Roberts took a moment to address his belief that the relationship between Texas and the federal government is irreparable.

During his remarks, he tackled the issue of TEXIT head on and took the opportunity to ask State Representative Steve Toth, who was in attendance if he was in support of HB 1359, the TEXIT Referendum Bill.

"Yes!" exclaimed Toth to major applause from the overflow crowd.

Rep. Toth's support comes at a critical time as the legislature is set to reconvene and on the heels of signals of public support from State Representative James White.

In his remarks, Roberts let attendees know that other Representatives have privately committed and would be signing on soon.

J.B.Katz said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Midnight Rider said:

---

There's a certain contradiction between loving your country and wanting to secede from it.

---

Not at all.

This is not MY Republican Party

This is not MY Democratic Party

This is not MY Episcopal church

This is not MY Baylor University

This is not MY drug-addicted spouse

This is not MY America

All of the things listed above provide opportunities to change or influence them in a positive manner and while in a position of deeper involvement. However, at a certain point, individuals will decide for themselves that the point of positive influence no longer exist and it is time to exit that relationship. It doesn't mean that the love is gone but, it may mean that the disgust outweighs that love.

---

I've chosen to stay a Republican. I've been one all my life and I'm old. My party needs moderates whether the Trumpers want us or not.

I'm watching the fallout from the stunt Kelli WArd pulled in AZ with censuring Cindy McCain, jeff Flake and Doug Ducey. I was hoping Ward wouldnt be reelected and it was close but not enough.

---

The Democrats need the moderates, too. Please see what you can accomplish there.

Seriously. Go play with the social justice warriors for a while. perhaps it will give you new found appreciation for those you think so little of at the moment.

---

If mainstream normal Republicans leave the party, as some have, that leaves only the extreme radical right and a party that has no significance on a national scale.

---

Firstly, let's get the definitions right: data is clear that mainstream normal Republicans support Donald Trump, who has transformed the party coalition into a middle class, blue collar party which has demonstrated more appeal to minority groups than the GOP has enjoyed in decades.

The handful of establishment Republican virtue posturing fools like Flake and Sasse and McCain & such are not a significant piece of the party, and are vastly outnumbered by the new blood Trump has brought into the party. In 2016, fully a third of the delegates at the Texas GOP convention had never been involved in any party event before. Keep in mind, the Tx GOP convention is the largest political convention in the world, almost 9000 attendees, and it happens mid-week, so all these truckers & pipe fitters & such had to take vacation to attend. Trump literally inspired people who'd never been politically active before to engage, and it was the difference between success and failure.

I'm dead serious when I say the GOP neverTrumper crowd should join the Democrat Party. It's the Democrats who have left classical liberalism to embrace progressivism. It's the Democrats who have embraced socialism. It's the Democrats who embrace cancel culture. It's the Democrats who need to be moderated. So, seriously, please you and Romney and Team Moderate go moderate the Democrat Party for a change. If you are successful, we won't need DJT.

---

If you Trumpers want to form your own party, go for it. I hold out hope that more than a handful of Republcians are better than Trump.

The new blood you say he brought into the party aren't exactly deep thinkers. Some were ready to vote for Bernie. Some will only follow Trump and if he's out of hte picture so are they.

---

Kinzinger launches country1st.com on Sunday for regaining control of the RP. https://news.yahoo.com/traffic-lies-house-republican-launches-171530693.html

Good luck to Rep. Kinzinger, but he needs some content on his new website.

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Midnight Rider said:

---

There's a certain contradiction between loving your country and wanting to secede from it.

---

Not at all.

This is not MY Republican Party

This is not MY Democratic Party

This is not MY Episcopal church

This is not MY Baylor University

This is not MY drug-addicted spouse

This is not MY America

All of the things listed above provide opportunities to change or influence them in a positive manner and while in a position of deeper involvement. However, at a certain point, individuals will decide for themselves that the point of positive influence no longer exist and it is time to exit that relationship. It doesn't mean that the love is gone but, it may mean that the disgust outweighs that love.

---

I've chosen to stay a Republican. I've been one all my life and I'm old. My party needs moderates whether the Trumpers want us or not.

I'm watching the fallout from the stunt Kelli WArd pulled in AZ with censuring Cindy McCain, jeff Flake and Doug Ducey. I was hoping Ward wouldnt be reelected and it was close but not enough.

---

The Democrats need the moderates, too. Please see what you can accomplish there.

Seriously. Go play with the social justice warriors for a while. perhaps it will give you new found appreciation for those you think so little of at the moment.

---

If mainstream normal Republicans leave the party, as some have, that leaves only the extreme radical right and a party that has no significance on a national scale.

---

Firstly, let's get the definitions right: data is clear that mainstream normal Republicans support Donald Trump, who has transformed the party coalition into a middle class, blue collar party which has demonstrated more appeal to minority groups than the GOP has enjoyed in decades.

The handful of establishment Republican virtue posturing fools like Flake and Sasse and McCain & such are not a significant piece of the party, and are vastly outnumbered by the new blood Trump has brought into the party. In 2016, fully a third of the delegates at the Texas GOP convention had never been involved in any party event before. Keep in mind, the Tx GOP convention is the largest political convention in the world, almost 9000 attendees, and it happens mid-week, so all these truckers & pipe fitters & such had to take vacation to attend. Trump literally inspired people who'd never been politically active before to engage, and it was the difference between success and failure.

I'm dead serious when I say the GOP neverTrumper crowd should join the Democrat Party. It's the Democrats who have left classical liberalism to embrace progressivism. It's the Democrats who have embraced socialism. It's the Democrats who embrace cancel culture. It's the Democrats who need to be moderated. So, seriously, please you and Romney and Team Moderate go moderate the Democrat Party for a change. If you are successful, we won't need DJT.

---

You want a party of subjects, not citizens; followers of a person, not advocates for a country.

---

Well, that certainly tells us you don't want a serious discussion on why so many regular people want Trump.

If you have any interesting in contacting your State Representative, here is the list:

1 - Gary VanDeaver (R-New Boston): 512-463-0692 - Bowie, Franklin, Lamar, Red River
2 - Bryan Slaton (R-Royse City): 512-463-0880 - Hopkins, Hunt, Van Zandt
3 - Cecil Bell (R-Magnolia): 512-463-0650 - Montgomery (Part), Waller
4 - Keith Bell (R-Forney): 512-463-0458 - Henderson (Part), Kaufman
5 - Cole Hefner (R-Mount Pleasant): 512-463-0271 - Camp, Morris, Rains, Smith (Part), Titus, Wood
6 - Matt Schaefer (R-Tyler): 512-463-0584 - Smith (Part)
7 - Jay Dean (R-Longview): 512-463-0750 - Gregg, Upshur
8 - Cody Harris (R-Palestine): 512-463-0730 - Anderson, Freestone, Hill, Navarro
9 - Chris Paddie (R-Marshall): 512-463-0556 - Shelby, Sabine, Cass, Harrison, Marion, Panola
10 - Jake Ellzey (R-Waxahachie): 512-463-0516 - Ellis, Henderson (Part)
11 - Travis Clardy (R-Nacogdoches): 512-463-0592 - Cherokee, Nacogdoches, Rusk
12 - Kyle Kacal (R-Bryan): 512-463-0412 - Brazos (Part), Falls, Limestone, McLennan (Part), Robertson
13 - Ben Leman (R-Brenham): 512-463-0600 - Austin, Burleson, Colorado, Fayette, Grimes, Lavaca, Washington
14 - John Raney (R-Bryan): 512-463-0698 - Brazos (Part)
15 - Steve Toth (R-The Woodlands): 512-463-0797 - Montgomery (Part)
16 - Will Metcalf (R-Conroe): 512-463-0726 - Montgomery (Part)
17 - John Cyrier (R-Bastrop): 512-463-0682 - Bastrop, Caldwell, Gonzales, Karnes, Lee
18 - Ernest Bailes (R-Shepherd): 512-463-0570 - Liberty, San Jacinto, Walker
19 - James White (R-Woodville): 512-463-0490 - Hardin, Jasper, Newton, Polk, Tyler
20 - Terry Wilson (R-Georgetown): 512-463-0309 - Burnet, Milam, Williamson (Part)
21 - Dade Phelan (R-Orange): 512-463-1000 - Jefferson (Part), Orange
22 - Joe Deshotel (D-Port Arthur): 512-463-0662 - Jefferson (Part)
23 - Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston): 512-463-0502 - Chambers, Galveston (Part)
24 - Greg Bonnen (R-League City): 512-463-0729 - Galveston (Part)
25 - Cody Vasut (R-Angleton): 512-463-0564 - Brazoria (Part), Matagorda
26 - Jacey Jetton (R-Sugarland): 512-463-0710 - Fort Bend (Part)
27 - Ron Reynolds (R-Missouri City): 512-463-0494 - Fort Bend (Part)
28 - Gary Gates (R-Richmond): 512-463-0657 - Fort Bend (Part)
29 - Ed Thompson (R-Pearland): 512-463-0707 - Brazoria (Part)
30 - Geanie Morrison (R-Victoria): 512-463-0456 - Aransas, Calhoun, De Witt, Goliad, Refugio, Victoria
31 - Ryan Guillen (D-Rio Grande City): 512-463-0416 - Atascosa, Brooks, Duval, Jim Hogg, Kenedy, La Salle, Live Oak, McMullen, Starr, Willacy
32 - Todd Hunter (R-Corpus Christi): 512-463-0672 - Nueces (Part)
33 - Justin Holland (R-Rockwall): 512-463-0484 - Collin (Part), Rockwall
34 - Abel Herrero (D-Robstown): 512-463-0462 - Nueces (Part)
35 - Oscar Longoria (D-Penitas): 512-463-0645 - Cameron (Part), Hidalgo (Part)
36 - Sergio Munoz, Jr. (D-Mission): 512-463-0704 - Hidalgo (Part)
37 - Alex Dominguez (D-Brownsville): 512-463-0640 - Cameron (Part)
38 - Eddie Lucio III (D-Brownsville): 512-463-0606 - Cameron (Part)
39 - Armando Martinez (D-Weslaco): 512-463-0530 - Hidalgo (Part)
40 - Terry Canales (D-Edinburg): 512-463-0426 - Hidalgo (Part)
41 - Bobby Guerra (D-McAllen): 512-463-0578 - Hidalgo (Part)
42 - Richard Raymond (D-Laredo): 512-463-0558 - Webb (Part)
43 - J.M. Lozano (R-Kingsville): 512-463-0463 - Bee, Jim Wells, Kleberg, San Patricio
44 - John Kuempel (R-Seguin): 512-463-0602 - Guadalupe, Wilson
45 - Erin Zwiener (D-Kyle): 512-463-0647 - Blanco, Hays
46 - Sheryl Cole (D-Austin): 512-463-0506 - Travis (Part)
47 - Vikki Goodwin (D-Austin): 512-463-0652 - Travis (Part)
48 - Donna Howard (D-Austin): 512-463-0631 - Travis (Part)
49 - Gina Hinojosa (D-Austin): 512-463-0668 - Travis (Part)
50 - Celia Israel (D-Austin): 512-463-0821 - Travis (Part)
51 - Eddie Rodriguez (D-Austin): 512-463-0674 - Travis (Part)
52 - James Talarico (D-Round Rock): 512-463-0670 - Williamson (Part)
53 - Andrew Murr (R-Kerrville): 512-463-0536 - Bandera, Crockett, Edwards, Kerr, Kimble, Llano, Mason, Medina, Menard, Real, Schliecher, Sutton
54 - Brad Buckley (R-Killeen): 512-463-0684 - Lampasas, Bell (Part)
55 - Hugh Shine (R-Temple): 512-463-0630 - Bell (Part)
56 - Charles "Doc" Anderson (R-Waco): 512-463-0135 - McLennan (Part)
57 - Trent Ashby (R-Lufkin): 512-463-0508 - Angelina, Houston, Leon, Madison, San Augustine, Trinity
58 - DeWayne Burns (R-Cleburne): 512-463-0538 - Bosque, Johnson
59 - Shelby Slawson (R-Stephenville): 512-463-0628 - Erath, Comanche, McCulloch, Mills, Hamilton, Coryell, San Saba, Somervell
60 - Glenn Rogers (R-Graford): 512-463-0656 - Brown, Callahan, Coleman, Eastland, Shackelford, Stephens, Palo Pinto, Hood
61 - Phil King (R-Weatherford): 512-463-0738 - Parker, Wise
62 - Reggie Smith (R-Sherman): 512-463-0297 - Delta, Fannin, Grayson
63 - Tan Parker (R-Flower Mound): 512-463-0688 - Denton (Part)
64 - Lynn Stuckey (R-Denton): 512-463-0582 - Denton (Part)
65 - Michelle Beckley (D-Carrollton): 512-463-0478 - Denton (Part)
66 - Matt Shaheen (R-Plano): 512-463-0594 - Collin (Part)
67 - Jeff Leach (R-Allen): 512-463-0544 - Collin (Part)
69 - James Frank (R-Wichita Falls): 512-463-0534 - Archer, Baylor, Clay, Foard, Knox, Wichita
70 - Scott Sanford (R-McKinney): 512-463-0356 - Collin (Part)
71 - Stan Lambert (R-Abilene): 512-463-0718 - Jones, Nolan, Taylor
72 - Drew Darby (R-San Angelo): 512-463-0331 - Coke, Concho, Glasscock, Howard, Irion, Reagan, Runnels, Sterling, Tom Green
73 - Kyle Biedermann (R-Fredericksburg): 512-463-0325 - Gillespie, Kendall, Comal
74 - Eddie Morales (D-Eagle Pass): 512-463-0566 - Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Kinney, Loving, Maverick, Pecos, Presidio, Reeves, Terrell, Val Verde
75 - Mary Gonzalez (D-San Elizario): 512-463-0613 - El Paso (Part)
76 - Claudia Perez (D-El Paso): 512-463-0622 - El Paso (Part)
77 - Evelina Ortega (D-El Paso): 512-463-0638 - El Paso (Part)
78 - Joe Moody (D-El Paso): 512-463-0728 - El Paso (Part)
79 - Art Fierro (D-El Paso): 512-463-0596 - El Paso (Part)
80 - Tracey King (D-Laredo): 512-463-0194 - Dimmit, Frio, Uvalde, Webb (Part), Zapata, Zavala
81 - Brooks Landgraf (R-Odessa): 512-463-0546 - Andrews, Winkler, Ector, Ward
82 - Tom Craddick (R-Midland): 512-463-0500 - Crane, Upton, Midland, Martin, Dawson
83 - Dustin Burrows (R-Lubbock): 512-463-0542 - Borden, Gaines, Lubbock (Part), Lynn, Mitchell, Scurry, Terry
84 - John Frullo (R-Lubbock): 512-463-0676 - Lubbock (Part)
85 - Phil Stephenson (R-Rosenberg): 512-463-0604 - Fort Bend (Part), Jackson, Wharton
86 - John Smithee (R-Amarillo): 512-463-0702 - Dallam, Hartley, Oldham, Deaf Smith, Randall, Parmer
87 - Four Price (R-Amarillo): 512-463-0470 - Sherman, Moore, Potter, Carson, Hutchinson
88 - Ken King (R-Canadian): 512-463-0736 - Armstrong, Bailey, Briscoe, Castro, Cochran, Donley, Gray, Hale, Hansford, Hemphill, Hockley, Lamb, Lipscomb, Ochiltree, Roberts, Swisher, Yoakum
89 - Candy Noble (R-Murphy): 512-463-0186 - Collin (Part)
90 - Ramon Romero, Jr. (D-Fort Worth): 512-463-0742 - Tarrant (Part)
91 - Stephanie Klick (R-North Richland Hills): 512-463-0599 - Tarrant (Part)
92 - Jeff Cason (R-Bedford): 512-463-0522 - Tarrant (Part)
93 - Matt Krause (R-Fort Worth): 512-463-0562 - Tarrant (Part)
94 - Tony Tinderholt (R-Arlington): 512-463-0624 - Tarrant (Part)
95 - Nicole Collier (D-Fort Worth): 512-463-0716 - Tarrant (Part)
96 - David Cook (R-Fort Worth): 512-463-0374 - Tarrant (Part)
97 - Craig Goldman (R-Fort Worth): 512-463-0608 - Tarrant (Part)
98 - Giovanni Capriglione (R-Keller): 512-463-0690 - Tarrant (Part)
99 - Charlie Geren (R-Lake Worth): 512-463-0610 - Tarrant (Part)
100 - Jasmine Crockett (D-Dallas): 512-463-0586 - Dallas (Part)
101 - Chris Turner (D-Arlington): 512-463-0574 - Tarrant (Part)
102 - Ana-Maria Ramos (D-Dallas): 512-463-0454 - Dallas (Part)
103 - Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas): 512-463-0746 - Dallas (Part)
104 - Jessica Gonzalez (D-Dallas): 512-463-0408 - Dallas (Part)
105 - Thresa Meza (D-Irving): 512-463-0641 - Dallas (Part)
106 - Jared Patterson (R-Frisco): 512-463-0694 - Denton (Part)
107 - Victoria Neave (D-Mesquite): 512-463-0244 - Dallas (Part)
108 - Morgan Meyer (R-Dallas): 512-463-0367 - Dallas (Part)
109 - Carl Sherman (D-Lancaster): 512-463-0953 - Dallas (Part)
110 - Toni Rose (D-Dallas): 512-463-0664 - Dallas (Part)
111 - Yvonne Davis (D-Dallas): 512-463-0598 - Dallas (Part)
112 - Angie Chen Button (R-Richardson): 512-463-0486 - Dallas (Part)
113 - Rhetta Bowers (D-Garland): 512-463-0464 - Dallas (Part)
114 - John Turner (D-Dallas): 512-463-0576 - Dallas (Part)
115 - Julie Johnson (D-Irving): 512-463-0468 - Dallas (Part)
116 - Trey Martinez (D-San Antonio): 512-463-0616 - Bexar (Part)
117 - Phillip Cortez (D-San Antonio): 512-463-0269 - Bexar (Part)
118 - Leo Pacheco (D-San Antonio): 512-463-0714 - Bexar (Part)
119 - Elizabeth "Liz" Campos (D-San Antonio): 512-463-0452 - Bexar (Part)
120 - Barbara Gervin-Hawkins (D-San Antonio): 512-463-0708 - Bexar (Part)
121 - Steve Allison (R-San Antonio): 512-463-0686 - Bexar (Part)
122 - Lyle Larson (R-San Antonio): 512-463-0646 - Bexar (Part)
123 - Diego Bernal (D-San Antonio): 512-463-0532 - Bexar (Part)
124 - Ina Minjarez (D-San Antonio): 512-463-0634 - Bexar (Part)
125 - Ray Lopez (D-San Antonio): 512-463-0669 - Bexar (Part)
126 - Sam Harless (R-Spring): 512-463-0496 - Harris (Part)
127 - Dan Huberty (R-Kingwood): 512-463-0520 - Harris (Part)
128 - Briscoe Cain (R-Baytown): 512-463-0733 - Harris (Part)
129 - Dennis Paul (R-Houston): 512-463-0734 - Harris (Part)
130 - Tom Oliverson (R-Houston): 512-463-0661 - Harris (Part)
131 - Alma Allen (D-Houston): 512-463-0744 - Harris (Part)
132 - Mike Schofield (R-Houston): 512-463-0528 - Harris (Part)
133 - Jim Murphy (R-Houston): 512-463-0514 - Harris (Part)
134 - Ann Johnson (D-Houston): 512-463-0389 - Harris (Part)
135 - Jon Rosenthal (D-Houston): 512-463-0722 - Harris (Part)
136 - John Bucy III (D-Cedar Park): 512-463-0696 - Williamson
137 - Gene Wu (D-Houston): 512-463-0492 - Harris (Part)
138 - Lacey Hull (R-Houston): 512-463-0727 - Harris (Part)
139 - Jarvis Johnson (D-Houston): 512-463-0554 - Harris (Part)
140 - Armando Walle (D-Houston): 512-463-0924 - Harris (Part)
141 - Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston): 512-463-0720 - Harris (Part)
142 - Harold Dutton, Jr. (D-Houston): 512-463-0510 - Harris (Part)
143 - Ana Hernandez (D-Houston): 512-463-0614 - Harris (Part)
144 - Mary Perez (D-Pasadena): 512-463-0460 - Harris (Part)
145 - Christina Morales (D-Houston): 512-463-0732 - Harris (Part)
146 - Shawn Thierry (D-Houston): 512-463-0518 - Harris (Part)
147 - Garnet Coleman (D-Houston): 512-463-0524 - Harris (Part)
148 - Penny Morales (D-Houston): 512-463-0620 - Harris (Part)
149 - Hubert Vo (D-Houston): 512-463-0568 - Harris (Part)
150 - Valoree Swanson (R-Spring): 512-463-0572 - Harris (Part)

Contacted. Thanks.

quash said:

---

Good luck to Rep. Kinzinger, but he needs some content on his new website.

---

his audience will scarcely exceed his own vanity.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Midnight Rider said:

---

There's a certain contradiction between loving your country and wanting to secede from it.

---

Not at all.

This is not MY Republican Party

This is not MY Democratic Party

This is not MY Episcopal church

This is not MY Baylor University

This is not MY drug-addicted spouse

This is not MY America

All of the things listed above provide opportunities to change or influence them in a positive manner and while in a position of deeper involvement. However, at a certain point, individuals will decide for themselves that the point of positive influence no longer exist and it is time to exit that relationship. It doesn't mean that the love is gone but, it may mean that the disgust outweighs that love.

---

I've chosen to stay a Republican. I've been one all my life and I'm old. My party needs moderates whether the Trumpers want us or not.

I'm watching the fallout from the stunt Kelli WArd pulled in AZ with censuring Cindy McCain, jeff Flake and Doug Ducey. I was hoping Ward wouldnt be reelected and it was close but not enough.

---

The Democrats need the moderates, too. Please see what you can accomplish there.

Seriously. Go play with the social justice warriors for a while. perhaps it will give you new found appreciation for those you think so little of at the moment.

---

If mainstream normal Republicans leave the party, as some have, that leaves only the extreme radical right and a party that has no significance on a national scale.

---

Firstly, let's get the definitions right: data is clear that mainstream normal Republicans support Donald Trump, who has transformed the party coalition into a middle class, blue collar party which has demonstrated more appeal to minority groups than the GOP has enjoyed in decades.

The handful of establishment Republican virtue posturing fools like Flake and Sasse and McCain & such are not a significant piece of the party, and are vastly outnumbered by the new blood Trump has brought into the party. In 2016, fully a third of the delegates at the Texas GOP convention had never been involved in any party event before. Keep in mind, the Tx GOP convention is the largest political convention in the world, almost 9000 attendees, and it happens mid-week, so all these truckers & pipe fitters & such had to take vacation to attend. Trump literally inspired people who'd never been politically active before to engage, and it was the difference between success and failure.

I'm dead serious when I say the GOP neverTrumper crowd should join the Democrat Party. It's the Democrats who have left classical liberalism to embrace progressivism. It's the Democrats who have embraced socialism. It's the Democrats who embrace cancel culture. It's the Democrats who need to be moderated. So, seriously, please you and Romney and Team Moderate go moderate the Democrat Party for a change. If you are successful, we won't need DJT.

---

You want a party of subjects, not citizens; followers of a person, not advocates for a country.

---

Well, that certainly tells us you don't want a serious discussion on why so many regular people want Trump.

---

Exactly. The "moderate/pragmatic/centrist" GOP voter who (understandably) has qualms with such an unpresidential President, is (uncharacteristically) letting their emotions lead their logic when it comes to DJT.

Look at the most recent data on Trump supporters:
--91% of Trump voters would vote for him again
--Trump leads the 2024 primary field by equal or greater margins than he did in 2016 (depending on the poll).
--60% of the public is opposed to impeachment.
--Trump, in nearly every public poll, left office with support equal to election day, despite uniform outrage on alphabet media and absolutely unhinged rhetorical nonsense from Democrats about insurrection and incitement.
--Given the clear data on where the GOP voter base is, pragmatics would clearly indicate that "moving on" from Trump is political suicide.

Normally, conventional wisdom would expect outcomes dramatically worse than the assessments we've seen posited by quash & others. So why is the data on Trump support is in such conflict with those expectations? The answer is simple, but stark. We are in a cold civil war, within systems (barely) governmentally, but spilling over into cancel culture in the social realm. Each side sees evil in the other - Democrats on attack, GOP looking for trenches to defend their way of life.

The problem for the GOP centrists is that there is no middle ground in the current situation. The Democrat Party is lost to CRT and the literal cult of wokeness, They cannot be reasoned with (reason being a tool of oppression & all). The GOP base understands the threat, even if not entirely cognizant of its philosophical underpinnings. Most importantly, the middle classes (see link) are on the verge of full revolt. More and more are coming to understand that Democrats only have eyes for race and gender; class doesn't matter anymore. Even old-school Democrats/liberals are starting to grasp this and push back.

Would I rather have a GOP leader more Reaganesque? Sure. But what I need most of all is a GOP leader who is not only absolutely unflinchable when Democrats and media are in full outrage, but one who fights, one who will seek out opportunities to trigger them. That is when they drop the veneer of compassion and bare the teeth of their intolerance. Again, look at the polling needle in the aftermath of the capitol riot - dead steady Trump support. Remarkable. Telling. So don't play nice with wokeness. Don't cede it any ground (Bari Weiss article in next post).

"If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them."
--Sun Tzu
The Art of War

Then there is the recent poll done by Rasmussen (most accurate pollster last 2 general elections) showing that if Trump were to form a "Patriot Party" the GOP would be in 3rd place. If the GOP centrist/moderates are the pragmatic deal-makers they fashion themselves to be, why is it so hard for them to be pragmatic about dealing with the base of their own party, who clearly are looking to continue the MAGA agenda? Does their aversion to conflict make them prefer a certain wildnerness to a chance for victory?

Wokeness cannot last. Jacobins always eat their own. The Founders were right that societies are built on individuals, not groups. When we attack individuals and force them into collective identities against their will, individuals resist. We should not miss opportunities to provoke wokeness into anger, for it is then when it shows its ideological intolerance. The more we provoke them, the more they will fall into logical traps, inconsistencies and hypocrisies. They will not be bothered by any of that, but the folks in the middle will see it.

This is so simple to understand. Centrists avoid polemics, and instinctively seek to de-escalate. There are times and places for that. But this is not that time. Pragmatists be willing to understand where we are. They still think we are in normal politics. We are not. We are in a war over the meaning of America.

The is an old Jerry Clower joke about Marcel Ledbetter catching lots of fish when no one else could. So the game warden followed him out on the lake one day. Sure enough, Marcel stopped his boat, opened his tacklebox, pulled out a stick of dynamite, lit it, and threw it in the water. Boom. Marcel picks up a tub full of fish. The warden races over and says "Marcel! stop that!!" BOOM. and other tub full of fish floats up to the top. The warden, now alongside Marcel's boat, says "Marcel! You are under arrest!" Marcel lights a third stick of dynamite and tosses it to the warden, who reflexively catches it. Marcel says "Warden, are you gonna argue, or fish."

GOP moderates are holding that stick of dynamite right now, and it is fizzling with anger over election fraud and cancel culture and such. And they are arguing. If they are the pragmatists they claim to be, they should fish.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/536860-the-memo-ohio-dem-says-many-in-party-cant-understand-working-class-concerns