Texans May Have Secession Question on Republican Primary Ballot

| |

lone star flag wikimedia

Aside from voting for whatever politician happens to be the flavor of the month, the Republican voters of Texas may have an additional question to answer for when Super Tuesday arrives next year. If the Texas Nationalist Movement has its way, then the Republican primary ballot may have to ask voters to decide whether or not they think “the state of Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation” and secede from the United States

Much to the chagrin of the Republican party, the Texas independence group is currently gathering signatures for a petition that would place their non-binding question on the ballot. According to the Texas Secretary of State, they will need at least 66,894 signatures, though the organization is shooting for 75,000.

Historically, the Republican Party would have the final say on what goes on their ballot, and they’ve tried to distance themselves from the Texas Nationalist Movement in the past. If the petition succeeds, it would be the first time that an outside group has their referendum placed on the Republican ballot. The group’s president hopes that the vote will get state legislators to take the issue seriously. “Texas and Washington, D.C. are on very different paths, and the people of Texas obviously recognize that…The Texas Nationalist Movement message has been one not of reaction to grievance but one of a future we can build as an independent nation.”

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).


Contributed by Joshua Krause of The Daily Sheeple.

Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshua’s reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter. Joshua’s website is Strange Danger .

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • masterblaster

    hope they succeed I will be the first to apply for citizenship

    • Since when do you have to apply for citizenship in Texas?

      • So people that support succession but are not currently Texans would be unwelcome?

        • Razedbywolvs

          It would work exactly the same as going to any other country. You could visit or stay on visa or live full time if you signed up to be chattel for the Gov

        • Dennis Barton

          Untrue we would welcome all conservative freedom loving people if you are a liberal or statist or socialist you wouldnt like it here.

          • I don’t know about that, a lot of Texans are quite statist in their thinking themselves.

        • Mostly because Texas is in a similar situation to where the colonies were around the time of the Declaration. The majority is happy with the status quo, and they see secessionists as their enemies. Until enough come around, there will be neither secession nor support for it, because they won’t have, short of Jade Helm, a military invasion to drive them away from the federals like the British invasion did the colonists.

          • TX, with its large military population is also quite attached to the federal govt. The whole “Support the Troops” line is a clever way to create support for the federal govt. That and having positioned all the military bases as well as the funding really has cemented the South with the Feds. I think a lot of the voicing about secession and the right of states to do it is really just empty rhetoric, in the end people are too comfortable with the status quo and are fearful about change. The pioneering attitude of Americans has been eroding and is probably at a tipping point to cherish safety rather than liberty.

          • What you say is absolutely true about politicos everywhere, but you don’t seem to know Texans or Texas very well, and I know more people who hate the federal government in Texas than any other state, and I’ve spent time in all of the lower 48 to draw experience from.
            Support the Troops could take on a whole new meaning if Jade Helm has unintended consequences.

          • While I do not know a lot about Texas (it is diverse and big), I lived in Houston for three to four years and have kin in the area. While there are those that are very anti-govt, you can also find those that are very pro-federal govt. Texas is big and there are lots of opinions. I suspect the opinions in TX would mirror that in other areas, the closer you get to the big cities, the more people support govt, the further away where people can do for themselves, the more they resent busybodies in their business.

          • Houston is very different, being the largest American city without zoning, which is about as anti-government as it is possible for a city or county to be.

      • Razedbywolvs

        It wouldn’t be an issue. If one state goes, others will follow.

        • Arcanek

          If it’s not a free for all when the federal well runs dry.

    • Bo Wetstone

      have to get rid of all the steers and qweers though

  • Talking about seceding is a bit late when other states are already actively considering it, and Texas has the authority in their statehood agreement to do it with a simple majority vote of the electorate. Those who want to secede should get busy educating the sheeple instead of trying to cow the politicians.

    • All states have that authority, the issue is being able to enforce it. Last time Texas tried succeeding, it failed. It also allowed the criminal in the White House to become a “hero.”

      • Texas is the only state that can do it without its legislature authorizing it, because of their unique statehood agreement with the federal government.

        • Agreements with the federal govt do not mean much, just ask the Indians. Also, Texas was denied that ability when they tried during the civil war. There is a big difference between the rights the govt says you have/reserve vs what they actually recognize. Just look at how the Bill of Rights has been trampled.

          • The agreements with the indians were treaties, and that with Texas was a contract, which is enforceable by all federal courts, according to the Constitution. The civil war was neither, being an attack against a sovereign neighbor without a declaration of war by Congress.

          • As the feds ignored that contract last time, why wouldn’t they do it again? Also, treaties carry the force of a federal law and so can be enforced in court.

          • Treaties only carry the force of federal law when they have been ratified by the senate. I don’t remember the senate ratifying a treaty in my lifetime, and I am 60. Contracts are legal documents, enforceable by federal courts. Both this and the treaty ratification is in the organic law of this country, the Constitution.

          • Arcanek

            Congress is overridden by the executive quite often. And congress pays little attention to the constitution whenever it suits them. But why would anyone expect the worst group of liars on the planet (politicians) to do anything else is beyond me. nobody has the right to declare themselves to be government in the first place.

          • And Congress has the ability to override a presidential veto, with absolutely zero recourse by the executive.
            The beautify of anarchy is that each individual is free to do whatever they want, taking their own chances without anyone, let alone any government, telling them what they can or cannot do. The downside is that all you can do if you don’t like the way things are going, is leave. Sound familiar to what many, especially wealthy, individuals are doing right now? I found it preferable and much easier (and cheaper) to move to a part of America where the rule of law is still in operation, and I can carry whatever I want to protect myself, however I want to, which makes doing so unnecessary, because there are dozens of unofficial guns per cop in any public venue.

          • Arcanek

            Try to focus here. This wan’t about anarchy. And how does congress override an executive order? you seem to have the attention span of a five year old, which is typical of a bootlicker like you.

          • An executive order has no legal authority outside of the executive branch, being a fancy name for an inter-office memo. If you weren’t so ignorant about virtually everything you think you know something about, you’d be worth having an conversation with, but as it is, corrections are mostly what you need from me.

          • Arcanek

            The bill of rights was forced on the fedral government. the authors of the constitution voted against the bill of rights during the Philadelphia convention 10-0.

          • Right, they thought it was unneeded and would be used to detract people’s rights, as in the rights listed are all you get. The Constitutional Convention was a coup in itself, as they were sent their by their states to work the kinks out of the Articles of Confederation, not create a centralized government to reign over the states.

          • Arcanek

            That was one of the arguments against the bill of rights. They also said that it was unnecessary since the constitution provided no authority to violate any of those rights. However, the states did not believe them and added the bill of rights during the ratification process, yet most people believe that the bill of rights was the work of the framers of the document, even though they were in opposition to it. And not very many are aware that 13 delegates left the convention because they thought it was illegitimate for exceeding its intended purpose, and three more remaining representatives refused to sign the document. Hardly the picture they present to the students.

          • Kindly cite the documentation for that apparent complete hallucination.

          • Arcanek

            from http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html

            During the Convention, the delegates were mostly set against the inclusion of a bill of rights in the new Constitution, defeating efforts by George Mason and Elbridge Gerry to consider one. Madison himself was reticent, saying in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, saying “[I have] always been in favor of a bill of rights… At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment.”

            And you go stuff it with the hallucination comment, you stupid jackass. wake up, you pathetic bootlicker.

      • Patrick Chkoreff

        Please, enough with “succeed”, “succeeded”, and “succession”. The correct words are “secede”, “seceded”, and “secession”.

    • Nick

      The RINO’s of Texas pride themselves at their open dismissal of the secession option.

  • Nick

    That would be nice, an independent Texas. However we all know the corrupt power structure in DC would never allow such a thing. If Texas secedes it will be because Texas can win militarily.

    • Arcanek

      Or govzilla goes broke.

  • Carroll Price

    Texas then Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma and northern Florida. But not south Florida which is infested with too many damned Yankees.

  • Puke repubs or dems won’t allow their slave population to go ‘free’ , TEXAS, the all caps subsidiary of USA INC is another IMF owned corporation

  • Bo Wetstone

    excellent idea- i’ll be the first to relocate if it happens- Rick Perry might still become president (of Texas)

    • Virgil Hilts

      More likely Ted Cruz

      • Bo Wetstone

        of course, ted is the man with the plan for texas.

  • juskom95

    If nothing else, this would be an interesting ballot. Even though non-binding, the results could be very telling on how/where the state sits politically.

  • EnditsoonLORD

    Texas will never succeed at secession. Ok, next story.

    • Patrick Chkoreff

      It appears that the Texas legislature has approved the Texas Bullion Depository (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=HB483)

      Now they face the grimly serious task of actually getting their million or so ounces of gold back from the warehouse in New York managed by frauds and thieves. If they can manage that, they might then have a shot at dissolving their political bonds with Washington DC.

      • EnditsoonLORD

        That’s all good and fine. But do you REALLY think that the U.S. government will just let Texas secede? Look what happened in 1861 when legal secession was attempted. They were trying to break the bonds of a corrupt government then as well and you see what that got them. Now our apostate government is exponentially stronger.
        If Texas were ever to secede it would be to become part of Mexico. They are almost there anyway for all intents and purposes. La Raza is seeing to that.

        • Patrick Chkoreff

          It’s pretty hard to argue with your point that the corrupt government now is exponentially stronger than the corrupt government 150 years ago. From that I can only conclude that a Texas secession will be possible only if the current U.S. government becomes very obviously weak, a shambles, and a joke.

          I suppose the most likely way that could happen is a debt and currency crisis. Maybe interest rates rise so dramatically that debt service consumes all tax revenue and then some. Maybe a deflationary spiral ensues as fewer people borrow, and more of them “wander off into the woods” so to speak as they did in the last throes of the Roman Empire. As they desperately try to fight the deflation with inflation, “money” in the sense of bank debts becomes more meaningless and irrelevant to human activity.

          With a scenario like that in place, the Federal government would have a hard time doling out stolen loot to the State governments, in the form of “highway funds” and “block grants” and such, with all the strings attached that keep the States subservient. The people in the States would be forced to take more responsibility themselves, and the Federal government would be a distant, utterly dysfunctional, and largely irrelevant shell of its former self. The people would have to get on with their lives, as physics demands.

          At a point like that, the secession becomes more /de facto/ than /de jure/.

          Is the scenario I describe likely to happen? Some think that $19 trillion in debt, and counting rapidly, is manageable, but is it really, considering possible interest rate moves and especially considering demographics? The proponents of mass immigration often fool themselves into thinking that they’re importing legions of new tax slaves to prop up government finances, but how many of those people are actually net tax payers versus net tax takers? I suspect that the net tax takers will continue to outnumber net tax payers, both among immigrants and the native population, since a very high percentage of people are now dependent on government either for a paycheck or a welfare check.

          Also, it’s not just $19 trillion we’re talking about, but well over $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare. How does that get “paid off?” Answer: it doesn’t. Instead, it gets defaulted out of existence, hopefully to the government as gradually and invisibly as possible.

          So, just looking at the finance and physics of the situation, I don’t think the government can meet its obligations even if it rounds every productive person into a slave labor camp and takes the entirety of their output, minus room and board. In fact, they can’t meet their obligations *especially* if they do that. Certainly nothing in between, not even a Bernie Sanders 65% income tax, will do the trick. On this basis, I think the scenario is highly possible.

          There might be one alternative: the government could go in the direction of increased freedom, instead of increased totalitarianism. They could scale back their larceny and overweening regulation, gradually renege on entitlements through means-testing and such, and let people get on with the business of business, keeping essentially everything they earn. There might have to be massive defaults on U.S. Treasury bills, and the people who lent money to the former government and enabled their tyrannical behavior would thereby be punished.

          In that relatively happy scenario, a Texas secession could still happen because it would not be violently opposed by the now freedom-respecting Federal government. In fact, the people in that Federal government would likely already be amenable to more cantonal systems of government like in Switzerland.

          In my view, the possible scenarios I see all provide an opportunity for Texas secession, but things are going to have to get a LOT different from what they are now first! The good news, or the bad news, or just the news, is that I think basic physics and finance decree that things will indeed get a lot different. To paraphrase Hemingway, it’ll happen gradually, then suddenly.

          • EnditsoonLORD

            Kudos to you sir. You have obviously been paying attention and I salute you. But I, being very pessimistic concerning mans desire to rule over other men, see a more difficult outcome.
            You are a minority since the vast majority don’t understand a word of what you just said, much less care. And when your scenario happens the government will do it’s best to “help those poor people who have been taken advantage of” and those very same people will fight with patriotic fervor to defend the United States Government which in their eyes is the only thing standing between them and starvation.
            The outcome is any ones guess but I think it is just as likely that Texas will end up part of Mexico or as part of some U.N. sectioned and created new state.
            Either way we will be under ever worsening states of freedom and liberty since man will not change and that is the sad reality of our “evolution”.
            Sorry to sound so gloom. 🙂

          • Arcanek

            Another factor would be the election process becoming such a boondoggle that govzilla loses all credibility and can no longer stage manage the notion of a mandate of the people. The fact that Deez Nutz outpolled some mainline candidates is a good indication that the emperor’s new clothes are being laughed at. Also, a serious devaluation of the dollarwould require hyperinflation, which is only a stopgap. thefirst sign will be a shortage of money. The first sign of the end of the dollar and govzilla with it, will be money everywhere, as it becomes worthless. they may have to resort to electronic money to try and stop the leaks. If there’s a massive cellphone handout, that would be a sign, as that would indicate electronic wallets.

  • Ian

    Don’t these people remember the civil war. You can’t succeed from the union. They won’t allow it

    • Arcanek

      They won’t be able to stop it if govzilla goes broke. They haven’t had a decent victory since world war 2.

  • Dan

    Texas is a sovergin state and can succeed . So can any other state. It may be wiser to remove the criminals and restore the law as prescribed in the constitution ..

  • James

    This could be very bad for Texas & America. If Texas goes back to being a Independent Country they can not use Federal Laws on there border with Mexico. In that treaty it states any Mexican can enter Texas to do ranch & farm work. But no other jobs. So they line up at the border. Tell Texas border control we come to ranch and enter. Nothing Texas could do. Now were do they go from there once in Texas? Better read all the paper work before you vote. Also your treaty with England would be reinstated. Lay all the facts out before you vote on this one