The “governor” of the occupation government of the Republic of Texas, jusssstttt can not seem to sign a law protecting Texican and American monuments from Texican and American hating foreigners, but he sure as hell broke his neck signing a law trying to make Texicans criminals if they resist the evil of products made in occupied Palestine.
Are conservatives warming up to the ideas of secession?
Over the past year, conservative commentators Kurt Schlichter and Jesse Kelly have written articles flirting with the idea of secession due to divisive U.S. politics. Although both authors resort to the typical finger-pointing about the Left that is commonplace among the mainstream Right, they do raise valid points about the current polarized political climate. Their interpretation of present-day American politics is immaterial. The fact that they’re suggesting a break-up of the U.S. should be commended.
It’s become abundantly clear that with big spending, a bloated welfare state, and overstretched military-industrial complex, those U.S. institutions are heading towards a day of reckoning. Coupled with a major culture war, and we have a recipe for political unrest in the near future. Schlichter acknowledges these ominous macro-trends citing “endless crusades” abroad, the Green New Deal, and the abolition of Electoral College as many wedge issues that are creating unprecedented divisions in the country. For Schlichter, a national break-up isn’t so far-fetched given that he wrote about this concept in some of his novels People’s Republic, Indian Country, and Wildfire in which the country separates into red and blue nations.
Peaceful Secession Should Always be Encouraged
But such a split doesn’t have to be so binary. It can be based along regional, ethnic, religious, or economic lines. Nevertheless, the fact that secession is being entertained is a good starting point. In his article for The Federalist, Jesse Kelly raises a good point about the fluid nature of national borders:
Borders move. Countries split and change hands. They do this for a myriad of reasons. Ours would be a major cultural shift toward the left and half the country refusing to go along with tyranny.
Major events — like World War I — effectively broke up traditional empires and created new sovereign nations. However, wars should not be the only catalysts behind the creation of new nations. In fact, political entities that face any kind of internal disputes should enthusiastically embrace self-determination and get the ball rolling on a voluntary and peaceful basis.
Kelly’s framing of secession as an “amicable divorce” is the right mentality to take when discussing this matter. Secession should not be treated as a cataclysmic event that requires a massive state to crack down against the “unruly” subject. We’re dealing with humans here, not automatons that have to be poked and prodded during each election cycle, nor realpolitik chess pieces that must be exploited by politicians and bureaucrats.
Instead, secessionist movements represent the logical response to the unhealthy relationships that individuals and certain populations segments have with central governments. These movements should be allowed to go their natural course. In sum, political conflicts should be treated like any other human relationships. When they fail, both parties divorce and go their separate ways peacefully.
The Seeds of Modern-Day Secession are being Sowed In Europe
The idea of separatism is no ivory tower theory — it’s something starting to happen in real time. Since the 2016 Brexit vote, separatist movements throughout Europe have been rejuvenated and continue to gain ground as the European Union treads through the waters of socio-economic uncertainty. Even in America, rural counties are revolting against big city interests over the issue of gun control. Some parts of Washington state, have gone as far as to propose creating a separate state in eastern Washington that better represents the interests of rural communities.
The twentieth century was a time of centralization. However, this historical development did not just happen in one fell swoop. It was born in the eighteenth century through the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau advocated for a mass democracy of sorts bolstered by an activist central government. Cliché concepts such as the “will of the people” have formed the philosophical backbone of gigantic governments worldwide. The problem isn’t democracy itself, but rather its implemented scale. Eventually, states get too big and the cultures within them resort to unproductive political conflicts, thus making every election cycle a high-stakes affair. Not exactly a recipe for peace and tranquility.
Ryan McMaken is correct in asserting that the solution to the mega-state status quo we live in “lies in a peaceful embrace of division, secession, decentralization, and disunity.” Unity sounds warm and fuzzy, but maintaining it at all costs is a disaster waiting to happen. The history of political conflict between factions usually results in civil war, and as a result, the emergent governing structure uses repression to consolidate its power. Respect for individual liberties often becomes an afterthought.
Given the changing demographics and unwieldy tasks the United States government is undertaking, the country needs to take a timeout and actually consider separation. Even if it’s based on a simplistic red vs. blue divide, it’s still a conversation starter for future separatist movements. The depoliticization of society starts with decentralization.
Mass democracy has run its course and new alternatives that value localism should now be considered.
If you read this piece closely, ignore the Jack ass Vs the fat elephant propaganda, you can see how the USA is using their court system to ship illegal criminals into the major cities of the Occupied by the USA, States, against the will of the people of the States.
USA is not trying to stop the illegal criminal invasion run away train, USA/WASHINGTON DC, is running the damn rail road.
Thanks to USA/WASHINGTON DC polices encouraging criminals from backwards countries to overrun the native bred and born.
And the dumb fucks at city hall if your city is one with treasonous ass holes declaring “sanctuary cities”, for those criminal scum who are raping, robbing, murdering, eating free off of, getting free medical off of, free housing off of, free education off of, the backs of the Native born of those States, forced by USA to steal from the States people, to give to foreign criminals.
Texas lawmakers are considering a bill that would ban abortion in the state and charge women who have abortions with homicide, which can carry the death penalty in the state.
Rep. Tony Tinderholt, a Republican, introduced the “Abolition of Abortion in Texas Act,” or House Bill 896, in January to “protect the rights of an unborn child” but it was granted its first committee hearing on Monday and Tuesday.
Nearly 500 people testified, with 54 people testifying against the bill, according to The Washington Post.
“A living human child, from the moment of fertilization on fusion of a human spermatozoon with a human ovum, is entitled to the same rights, powers, and privileges as are secured or granted by the laws of this state to any other human child,” the text of the bill reads.
Republican Rep. Matt Krause, who sits on the Texas House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence, which heard the bill, said in a statement on Facebook before the hearing that it was “the first legislative hearing since 1973 on this topic.”
Tinderholt did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Democrats on the committee excoriated the bill, calling the provisions hypocritical.
“I’m trying to reconcile in my head the arguments that I heard tonight about how essentially one is OK with subjecting a woman to the death penalty … to do to her the exact same thing that one is alleging she is doing to a child,” Democratic Rep. Victoria Neave said during the hearing, according to The Washington Post.
Tinderholt defended the bill, according to Fox 9, a Texas television station.
“I think it’s important to remember that if a drunk driver kills a pregnant woman, they get charged twice. If you murder a pregnant woman, you get charged twice. So I’m not specifically criminalizing women. What I’m doing is equalizing the law,” Tinderholt said.
The bill would ban abortion at any stage of pregnancy and would criminalize women who have abortions and the physicians who perform them, even in cases of rape, human trafficking or incest. The bill directly conflicts with the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, which outlawed criminalizing abortion.
Before the bill goes to the full Texas House for debate, it faces a challenge in committee.
Republican Rep. Jeff Leach, chairman of the House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence, told The Dallas News that he would not allow the committee to advance the legislation with provisions that penalize women.
“I cannot and will not support nor will I let come out of this committee any bill on [abortion] which targets the woman with either civil or criminal liability,” he told the paper.
Texas House Speaker Dennis Bonnen declared Constitutional Carry legislation dead after he claimed that members of the gun activist group “Texas Gun Rights” showed up at his house when only his wife and children were home.
Chris McNutt, executive director of Texas Gun Rights vehemently denied Bonnen’s charges claiming that the group was just putting flyers on doors that were encouraging the citizens of Texas to contact their representatives to ask why Constitutional Carry legislation has stalled in the House.
“The fear and intimidation used to push this agenda have made it clear this is bad public policy,” Bonnen said in a Facebook post. “These gutless intimidation tactics only embolden me to continue strengthening the rights of law abiding gun owners and keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.”
McNutt responded to Bonnen in his own Facebook post stating: “He is trying to paint the simple act of leaving a flyer on the doors of hundreds of his constituents and donors – asking them to contact their legislators to support a bill– is somehow an act of intimidation.”