Hog-Tied In Texas

Is it still OK to wave a white flag to call a truce, or is that racist and chock full of privileges and stuff?

It never ceases to amaze me how much cognitive dissonance a Bumbledick can hold in xis/xer/their head without exploding.  I suspect this capacity alone necessitates the crying rooms popping up on campuses around the Western hemisphere.

Here's the deal: Texas passed a law making abortion illegal in most cases after the first month and a half of pregnancy.  I seems that a woman (no, biological males cannot get pregnant) wants to have absolute control over her body and the choice whether to have a baby.  It is not enough that she had the choice not to have sex, or whether to use birth control, or even to have a full 45 days after conception to think about it.

I know women have difficulties making decisions, but come on.  Perhaps this is why there aren't more high-powered female executives?

Anyway, a bunch of people who make a tidy living selling aborted fetuses to medical science took the matter to the US Supreme Court in hopes of stopping the law taking effect.  The Supremes took one whiff of the case and shoved it back across the table.

Well, as even the corner palm reader could have predicted, the Bumbledicks are losing their minds.  How could the government tell anyone what to do with their body?  It's unconstitutional, they screech.  It's unnamaerican, they holler.  It will deprive a bunch of cloning researchers and vaccine makers of their grant money, they opined.  It's anti-capitalist!  Oh OK, I added that one myself.

All of this righteous indignation is coming from - get this - people who have spent the past two years berating, spraying, shunning, brow beating, attacking, molesting, and just plain being nasty to a lot of folks who don't want to be forced to wear masks, get injected with toxic waste and sit alone in their caves because of a wholly manufactured medical emergency.

Now wait a minute.  You say the government has no right to reach its grubby fingers into your uterus, but by golly it has every right to tell you what to wear, and what potions and how many times to inject into your sacred temple.

Maybe I'm a dying breed, and I often feel that way, but I perceive a direct connection between these two issues, where Bumbledicks don't seem to even allow them into the same part of the shambles they pass off as brains.

Though I personally find backing off my revulsion towards infanticide in order to prevent genocide is a grotesque Solomon's Choice, it does seem there is an oppotunity for Bumbledicks to make common cause with rational people.  It's not pretty, but it's a start into more expansive dialog.

Getting government all the way off our backs would be a tremendous victory for everyone involved.

Here's my offer: I would be willing to allow women the ability to abort a pregnancy up to the end of the second trimester, provided there is ZERO government funding (your choice, your cost) and the aborted fetus is immediately and thoroughly incinerated to stop the vile, nay evil trade in body parts.  If a woman can't make her choice in180 days, then there are bigger issues than just an unwanted pregnancy.

In  exchange, Bumbledicks will immediately begin opposing mandatory tests, masks, injections, and medical procesdures of any kind.

We'll call a truce on the cornucopia of other issues until this cease fire sticks.

Despite this purely rational and equitable solution, I know what the Bumbledicks will do.  They will want revenge and will start pushing their assault on everyone else's body integrity rights even harder.  I cut them a little slack, because what's left of their minds is fogged over from vaccines and carbon dioxide poinsoning. 

But hey, it's worth a shot to save the human race.

Texians Draw Fire

As is often the case, any argument in favor of an independent Texas usually draws heated responses.  Most run to the fact that Joint Resolutions of Congress fairly annexed Texas into the Union, and that the election of 1845 was fair and legal, both points of which are patently false.  But, let's allow one of our more articulate readers make the points:

I have no problem with your opinions as expressed on your blog - we are all entitled to our own opinion. We are not, however, entitled to our own facts.

"The US president Polk was elected partly on a platform to get Texas into the Union.  The only problem was that Texians had no desire whatsoever to join.  Any vote that came up was soundly defeated."

This is a complete falsehood. The referendum on annexation received 94.4% of the vote in favor of joining the USA.

OCTOBER 13, 1845
Annexation ordinance and state constitution submitted to the Texas voters for approval. (The vote tally on November 10, 1845, was 4,254 to 267 in favor of annexation; the total vote, compiled January 1, 1846, was 7,664 to 430 in favor of annexation.) 
Sure, you can claim that was illegal as well, but you certainly can't use the argument that the people of Texas were against annexation. And, if you claim that was illegal, you can't turn around and say that secession was OK because of a referendum.

As far as annexation via resolution being unconstitutional in the US:

DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901)
"A treaty made by that power is said to be the supreme law of the land, as efficacious as an act of Congress; and, if subsequent and inconsistent with an act of Congress, repeals it. This must be granted, and also that one of the ordinary incidents of a treaty is the cession of territory, and that the territory thus acquired is acquired as absolutely as if the annexation were made, as in the case of Texas and Hawaii, by an act of Congress."

And as far as secession, it was illegal once Texas' government and people chose annexation:

Texas v. White, United States Supreme Court, (1868) 
"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States." The court did allow some possibility of the divisibility "through revolution, or through consent of the States."
Q. E. D.

Sorry, but by the standard of "the Will of the People," the people of Texas consented to annexation in 1845, and the nation they chose to join did not have an opt-out clause. They should have read the fine print. Actually, not even the fine print - the preamble says "to form a more perfect union." You don't get a "more perfect Union" by allowing states to leave at a whim.

Texas can be independent via the 49 other states agreeing to it, or by fighting and winning a war of independence. Good luck with either option.

One more small detail (and believe me, I skipped a LOT of items that are inaccurate in your post): Texas did indeed join the Confederacy. 

On March 23, 1861, the Texas Secession Convention ratified the CSA Constitution.

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/secession/23march1861.html

The people of the State of Texas assembled by delegates in Convention, ordain, That the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, adopted March 11th, 1861, by the Congress of the Provisional Government of said Confederacy, for the permanent government thereof, subject to ratification by the respective States, is hereby ratified, accepted, and adopted for the purposes therein expressed on the part of this State, acting in its sovereign and independent character.

This reader did a fine job of making my points, and I wish to thank him or her (was not clear from the information provided).  And to finish the argument, I simply need to point out that the words, "annexation of foreign countries" do not appear anywhere in either the Constitution of the united States or of The Republic of Texas.  Therefore, Joint Resolutions of Congress have no validity under either system of law.  It was no more legal or valid than the annexation of Iraq, which is also a captive nation of war.


So, let's examine the points one at a time, shall we?

The vote tally on November 10, 1845, was 4,254 to 267 in favor of annexation

 I re-iterate the point that annexation has no force under either Texas nor US law, nor under international law. Furthermore, 4,521 votes were registered in that referendum.  At the time, Texas had a registered population of roughly 200,000 people.  Damn it, Jim!  I'm an artist, not a mathematician, but that looks to me like about 97% of the population opposed, or at least didn't give a rat's (expletive) about joining the US.  And that assumes that the election was fair and lawful, which they rarely are.


Strike three comes with the vote to secede in 1861, which saw a 4-to-1 ratio vote in favor of independence a mere 18 years later.
Just to close the case, there were several attempts to vote Texas into the Union before the one cited by the reader, and those were completely rejected.  Thus, I question the veracity of the election, since the turn-out was so low and since it went in favor of Union, which had been rejected so many times before.


To address the reader's other point here, I did not claim that the 1845 election was illegal, I said that the 1865 election was, since only those who swore allegiance to the Union were allowed to vote.  Hardly a fair referendum, I'd say.


The reader goes on to quote DeLima v. Bidwell, which was decided 40-odd years after the fact and is the basis for the globalist take-over of the US at the present time through treaties such as Kyoto and Agenda 21, which any red-blooded Unionist would surely point to as treasonous.  I hardly find that conclusive, since grandfathering is considered illegal in our current system of law.  It's akin to outlawing the use of cars and then throwing anyone in jail who once used one before the enactment of the law.  And none of that argument makes the word "annexation" appear in the Constitution.  My copy is still bereft of any mention of the word.


Under international law, only a treaty has any force of law.  Joint Resolutions of Congress do not appear anywhere in the ICC or other international codes.  We are talking about relations between nations.  The reader is assuming a relationship akin to statehood.  Quite different beasts, that.


The reader goes on to say that the Union does not have an opt-out clause, yet in the First Amendment, the right of the people to associate is well understood and has considerable precedent.  The right of contract is also a fundamental part of Western law.  Joining an organization involves both association and contract.  If one party fails to live up to its obligations, then the other party has the absolute right to dissolve its bond.


This concept is at the very heart of the Declaration of Independence.  By the reader's argument, the colonies did not have the right to dissolve their bond with England, and so the very existence of the Union is without substance, therefore it does not have the power to annex or otherwise create States within itself.


By extension, if I were to join the Kiwanis Club under certain obligations and conditions, and the Kiwanis failed to meet their part of the bargain, I would not be allowed to quit the Club.  This argument is false prima facie.


The reader points to the concept of 'a more perfect Union.'  Yet, I would argue that not only was the Union dysfunctional at the time Texas and the Confederacy seceded, but in fact has become more so since that time.  Therefore, since the Union has failed to perfect itself, and has devolved from its original state, therefore ipso facto the States have not only the right but the obligation to dissolve from the Union, and seek to form yet a more perfect one outside the existing bounds.


As for the point about joining the Confederacy, the reader points to Texas' ratification of the Constitution of the CSA.  To that, I simply state that Texas acted in every way as a soverign nation, with president and Congress whose powers and activities were in every way equal to the president of the Confederacy and the US.  Does that sound like a subordinate state to a union to you?  I didn't think so.


I thank the reader for his or her well-reasoned argument and citations.  I agree that it is hard to sort out the truth in a land where autocratic fascism has rewritten the history books.  However, I also have the advantage of being a seventh generation Texian and the son of a politician/historian.  My information comes a bit more direct from the horses' mouth than most textbooks dare provide.


My family's root far exceed those of either the US or the Republic of Texas.  We helped found the Republic.  We also support and uphold the autonomy of the indiginous nations of the Comanche, Kickapoo, Lupan Apache, and Navajo, as well as others.  As conquered peoples of the American empire, we can certainly sympathize with their plight.


Sailing around planting flags does not claim the soil, any more than five flags on the face of the Moon make it the sole possession of the US.  The native rights of those who live on and work the soil are supreme, in any course of law.  That is something established in English law as far back as the Magna Carta, and even as far as Roman administrative law.  While the reader presents a fine argument, there are numerous holes in it, including presumptions and prejudices that hold no weight.  


I have posted the email in toto and I leave it to the good folks who come here daily to decide.  I clearly stated in my original post that I had neither the time nor the space to present the entire argument.  Therefore, there are many parts missing.  I invited the reader to examine the facts for themselves, just as I did.  I hope it is clear that I do not make decisions lightly or without ample proof.


In summary, I offer the words of Thomas Jefferson, who built a fine argument in favor of dissolving ties with England, that most Americans can find little fault with:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

And from the Texas Declaration of Independence:

"When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are derived, and for the advancement of whose happiness it was instituted, and so far from being a guarantee for the enjoyment of those inestimable and inalienable rights, becomes an instrument in the hands of evil rulers for their oppression."

I see no further need to argue the point.  

Texians Arise!

A very important holiday passed last week.  I had intended a post on that day, but as Fate would have it, I was traveling and couldn't get to it.

The date was March 2nd, and the occasion was Texas Independence Day.

When I was a kid, we still got that day as a holiday from school.  Many businesses were closed and it was bigger in some ways than the Fourth of July.  The federales have slowly killed Texas culture over the years, trying to brainwash us into thinking we are Americans.  Of course, anyone who is born between Baffin Island and Tierra del Fuego is an American.  For one group of folks to claim that title is a little absurd.

I, however, am a Texian.  I am a seventh generation Texian.  My great-great uncle fought at San Jacinto.  My great-great-grandfather was the first European doctor in Texas, and his writings on Kikapoo and Comanche medicine are preserved at the University of Texas.  Another direct relative was one of the first Supreme Court justices (after the US take-over).  My great-uncle was a well-known courgar hunter in West Texas.  And in just about every town in east Texas, you can find a Grover Street.

So, when I say I am a Texian, I mean it.

For many years, I was active in the Texas Independence effort.  At one point, I was Secretary of State, and I was quite successful, which is why federal agents destroyed my family to stop me.  It was the same thing they had done to others in the movement.  When they can't figure out a way to slander you, they destroy your family  Standard Operating Procedure.

They tried for years to get me with the legal system, but I was pretty squeeky clean: college degree, gainfully employed and well-established in my profession and community.  The only thing they could possibly point to was my history of fighting traffic regulations, which I managed to beat more often than not.  What really tweaked them was when I filed for Texas' membership in the Unrecognized Peoples and Nations Organization (UNPO).  It's like a mini UN for nations that are seeking independence and recognition.  Members of UNPO include Taiwan, some of the 'Stans and various North American indian nations.

I had discussed Texas' situation with the chief of the Lakota, the Apache and the Comanche.  I was accepted by these people because of my great-great-grandfather, Gideon Linscom, who had received the crossed arrows, an honor which protects the family in perpetuity.

I had begun issuing Texas passports, some of which have been stamped by other countries, including the US, Mexico, and several European and African nations (de facto recognition).  Our case has come before federal courts and the ICC, and we have won every time, giving Texas the status of Captive Nation of War, similar to Iraq now.  The US federal courts have awarded Texians monetary damages in the millions of dollars, and even admitted that several members of the various groups are being held as political prisoners without cause.

Some items of proof of Texas' status are the fact that the Texas flag must be flown at the same height on a separate staff as the US flag.  The federal government may not own any land in Texas and must pay rent on any land used by the federal government.  The floor in the capital rotunda says, The Republic of Texas.  Standard order of business in each session of the Legislature is to consider a bill of secession.

But how did all this come about?

In 1836, the Texian people declared their independence from Mexico, which was under the dictatorial rule of Santa Ana.  There ensured a heated battle for the next six weeks, with terrible casualties on the Texas side, the Alamo not being the least of them.  It came down to the Battle of San Jacinto, on the plains east of current-day Houston.  Santa Ana, in his ego, had made a big strategic mistake and encamped on a tongue of land with only one means of escape without boats.  On April 21, 1836, in one of the most decisive battles in western history, the Texian army, under General Sam Houston, decimated the Mexican army and captured Santa Ana in 19 minutes.

Santa Ana surrendered and was returned to Mexico in disgrace, while Texas went on as an independent republic for nine years.  However, the US, in its on-going quest for empire, was salivating over Texas as a bulwark against Mexico in its quest to steal the western lands, and especially California's gold.  Also, during this time, Texas sold its northern territories to the US for several million silver dollars.  That area is now parts of Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming.  That debt was never paid and now amounts to roughly $7 trillion, with interest and inflation.

The US president Polk was elected partly on a platform to get Texas into the Union.  The only problem was that Texians had no desire whatsoever to join.  Any vote that came up was soundly defeated.  After Polk's election, a series of backroom deals were done, with Sam Houston actually selling out the nation he helped to create.  Ultimately, the US and Texian Congresses passed Joint Resolutions declaring Texas a state in 1845.  Though the resolutions had no weight under Texas or US law, and there was no power in either Consitution to do this, it was accepted and done, and the US immediately moved in to start pissing on everything.

Then, in 1861, at the onset of the War of Northern Agression, Texians were given the chance to vote on statehood.  The vote was 4-1 against and Texas seceeded from the Union, though it was never legally part of it in the first place.  Though Texas sided with the Confederacy, it never formally joined, preferring to remain independent.

In the last battle of that war, federal troops left New Orleans and sailed into Galveston Bay.  The marched through to Austin and, at the point of a gun (literally), they forced the Congress to declare a new election on statehood.  The Congress, preferring to live on their knees to dying on their feet, gave in and the election was held.  Only people who swore an oath of loyalty to the US were allowed to vote.  Less than 200,000 people then proceeded to overwhelmingly make Texas part of the Union once again.

All was fine and good until a man named Richard McLaren started doing a little research.  When he discovered all of the above facts, and quite a few more, he went on a campaign to force the removal of Texas from the Union, using the federal courts and international law.  He was having some remarkable successes, needless to say.  In the process, he declared a large part of west Texas independent based on Spanish land grants and original title.  These were all legal and upheld in court.  He set up an Embassy there and used it as a headquarters for furthering the movement.

However, the federales were unhappy with this development.  They had just killed 80 people in Waco to keep Texan under control, and this was a dangerous development.  They set up McLaren with false charges and pinned some murders they committed on other members of the Texian group.  The Texians were jailed by a kangaroo court, where they remain to this day, despite the fact that the primary witnesses have recanted their testimony as false and the other charges have been shown to be without merit.  They are, thus, political preisoners of a fascist and illegal empire.

At any rate, the vote of 1865 has been declared illegal and a number of efforts are going forth to have a new referrendum on the matter.  Times being what they are, if the vote is held and is fair, it is likely to go overwhelmingly agsint the feds.

The story is, of course, much more complex.  This is hardly the forum for a detailed survey of events.  However, it should suffice to show that the movement is neither new nor crazy.  It is quite serious and has many legal implications that have occasionally made it to federal courts.

As for me, my wife was killed and my children kidnapped by CPS.  I was ultimately found guilty of unsavory politics and being male, both of which are de facto crimes in the US now.  I am living in self-imposed exile in the jungles of Borneo to protect my children.  My resignation as Secretary of State was refused and I still bear the Seal, so I am, for all intents and purposes, still the Secretary of State for the Republic of Texas.

Most Americans are blissfully unaware that things like this go on in their name.  They have been so thoroughly indoctrinated that they refuse to acknowledge that their federal government can commit such heinous crimes, both at home and abroad.  Thus, the feds get away with it.  There is little hope that the American people will wake up, as they are too busy worrying about who the next Idol will be and if Robert Downey Jr. will wear the Iron Man suit in the next sequel.  Meantime, thousands of people are dying and families are being destroyed in their names to build an empaire.  Enjoy your dinner, folks.

there are many good videos of Richard McLaren speaking, but for some reason they disappear off of YouTube rather quickly.  Here's about the only one I can find there.  There are many supporters who are very high-profile and well-known.  This is not a social club or half-hearted effort.  Many people have lost their lives, their fortunes and their families to fight this battle.  If you have to ask why you never read or see anything about it in the MSM, then please take another Welbutrin and go back to sleep.

If you're interested in getting active with the movement, you can get more information here, or see any of the websites linked through the Wikipedia article (although a lot of the truth is constantly deleted by federal agents who watch the page quite closely).  The one group that is affiliated directly with Richard McLaren is Convention Pro-Continuation of 1861.

Happy Birthday Texas!

The fun part is that when folks ask me what country I'm from, I always say, "Texas," even on customs and immigration forms.  The usual response is, "Oh, America."  To which I say, "No, Texas."  Many people can't imagine someone wanting to leave America, but after you've watched the destruction that the federal government perpetrates daily, and seen it first hand, it kind of kills the desire to hang out there.  So for me, my country is between the US and Mexico, on the Gulf of Mexico.

You can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy, as they say.

Sickhomeness

One of the best trilogies (in 5 parts) of all time is 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.' Of course, that's my opinion, but since it's my blog, that's all that matters. In the opening pages, Douglas Adams notes that the farther away from home a man gets, the stranger the look in his eye, and when Arthur looked into Ford's eyes, it nearly made him insane.

There is truth in that observation. You see it when you live overseas in the eyes of fellow adventurers. It is most extreme here on The Far Side. Part of it is due to the longing one feels for those comfort things that define 'home.' No matter how much one likes one's new home, or how comfortable one feels, or even how similar the new digs are to the old, there are still things missing that, when one closes one's eyes, one pictures in one's mind and calls them 'home.' Doesn't one?

I thought I would compile a short list of the things I miss about Texas. Texas is a great place, don't get me wrong, but it's been taken over by yankee carpetbaggers and Americans, so just as well I'm not there. Still, in my heart there are things that I miss and wish I could have here. So here goes. Feel free to play at home and see how your notes compare.

1. My daughter: 'Nuff said.
2. Blue Northers: the deathly calm before the storm, the Wall o' Weather headin' atcha, the wild wind and lightning, the sudden change from hot and muggy to cool and fresh. Nothing in the world like that.
3. Fat Texas Burritos: a massive tortilla, slathered with refried beans, taco meat, sour cream, tomatoes and lettuce, and piled with cheese. Pardon me while I wipe the drool off my keyboard.
4. Pork Loin: Mom's loin roast with garlic, rosemary and black pepper, crisp on the outside and tender inside, with a little brown gravy and new potatoes on the side.
5. West Texas: The Great Emptiness...driving down hiway 235 with a hundred miles of nothing on the longest, straightest road I've ever seen, doing 120 mph with the top down. And don't forget the endless horizon...
6. Fresh Mowed Lawn: lying on the grass, listening to the cicadas, the sprinkler chick-chick-chicking, a cold beer or seven in the cooler next to the hammock.
7. Elbow Room: ah, the feeling of being able to stretch out and knowing no one but the federal government is watching you. Nothing like a little privacy and 10 minutes' worth of solitude.
8. The Shooting Range: going down to the range on Saturday afternoon to pop off a few founds. Hell just having a gun in the house would be nice.
9. Quiet: Islam is the noisiest religion ever invented. I'd love to wake up with an alarm clock one day and not all the hollering at 4am.
10. Leg Room: I'd love to get in a car, on a bus or walk down the street and know that everything was laid out for someone 6'-2" tall.

Don't get me wrong, I love living on The Far Side. This is my new home and I am very happy here, but if I could just bring a few extra things, it would be perfect. Texas is pretty close to Heaven, but it's been infested with 'Merikans who think they have some claim to bung up the place.

I don't think anyone ever truly acclimates to a place that isn't home. The things that brought you comfort and joy as a kid stick in your subconscious and act like a homing beacon. There's a lot of things that override that impulse, but it is there, none-the-less, whispering in the background, tempting you with the sights, smells and sounds of home.

They say you can never go home. It is an imaginary place that no longer exists, if it ever did. To a certain extent, that's true. Home is what we call the memories that we cherish and the ideals we hold. Home is what we call the expected, even though the unexpected finds us anywhere. Perhaps there is some magic ratio of expected to unexpected that reaches a threshold called 'home.'

In any case, the farther one gets from home, as Douglas noted, the stranger the look in a man's eyes. Perhaps that is what we call the eyes of age, because even time takes us far from home, though the body stays planted in one spot. In that respect, home is truly where the heart is.

Kinda like baseball...you don't always make it home again, and even if you do, you always come from the opposite direction.