Look Ma, I'm a Right-Wing Extremist!

What do you call it when an institution which charges you with the defense of its most priceless possession, the very thing which gives that institution the authority to defend it, simultaneously declares that, and you, a threat?  In other words, how do you resolve defending the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic when the United States considers you a potential threat?  Does that make them the enemy, or yourself? 



According to the United States Department of Homeland Security, from their recently leaked Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment paper, I'm a Right-Wing Extremist!  (Funny, I don't feel like a Right-Wing Extremist.)

How can this be?  How is it even possible?

To understand, we have to go back to that subversive, anti-government manifesto, The U.S. Constitution.  Yes, the Federal Government fears it, and well they should, as it is the sole authority in this nation which limits their power.  It also is their power, that being, the supreme law of this nation.

Let me explain: 

Article Four of the U.S. Constitution outlines the limits and powers of individual States and the Tenth Amendment explicitly restates that the Federal Government is limited to *only* the powers granted in the Constitution (e.g. Article Four).  In the DHS paper, however, the current administration has deemed a 'right-wing extremist' anyone who rejects federal authority in favor of state or local authority. In and of itself, unconstitutional - but when the Federal Government oversteps their authority where States are concerned, following the laws of the Constitution rather than the Federal Government is not!

I am a supporter of States' Rights.  This does NOT make me an extremist.  Rather, a lover of liberty.  And in reference to my opening statement, the DHS whitepaper also suggests that Veteran's are suspect.  The very people who vow to give their life to the defense of this nation are under a watch-list for right-wing extremism by the very people who employ them, simply because they've done a job asked of them.  How messed up is that?

So our governor yesterday was quoted as saying:

The federal government has become oppressive.  I believe it's become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of its citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state.  Millions of Texans...that are tired of Washington, DC, trying to come down here and tell us how to run Texas.

This, from a State Senator! He finished with a veiled threat:

I mean, we're still part of the union down here in Texas, and our folks would like to keep it that way, but we see some things going on that are peculiar. They're frustrating.

He was speaking out against a Federal proposal which designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.

Governor Perry basically said to Washington, "NO THANK YOU."

I guess he's a Right-Wing Extremist too.

---

^{Originally posted at http://ehowton.livejournal.com. Edited for content.}

I think that the money that the US would demand for reimbursement for infrastructure and miliatry post moves out of country would make the idea of succession cost-prohibitave.

At the very least it would make for an interesting discussion.  I could totally see Texas being its own country again. 

I don't know whether it would be good or bad, but Native Texans are a different breed.  And I are one....

They tried in 1861. Look how well that turned out.

From the site above: 

     
It only proved that, when allowed to act outside his lawfully limited authority, a U.S. president is capable of unleashing horrendous violence against the lives, liberty, and property of those whom he pretends to serve.  The Confederate States (including Texas) withdrew from the Union lawfully, civilly, and peacefully, after enduring several decades of excessive and inequitable federal tariffs (taxes) heavily prejudiced against Southern commerce.[4]  Refusing to recognize the Confederate secession, Lincoln called it a "rebellion" and a "threat" to "the government" (without ever explaining exactly how "the government" was "threatened" by a lawful, civil, and peaceful secession) and acted outside the lawfully defined scope of either the office of president or the U.S. government in general, to coerce the South back into subjugation to Northern control.

Quote from: Angi on April 16, 2009, 03:32:52 PM

They tried in 1861. Look how well that turned out.

From the site above: 

     
It only proved that, when allowed to act outside his lawfully limited authority, a U.S. president is capable of unleashing horrendous violence against the lives, liberty, and property of those whom he pretends to serve.  The Confederate States (including Texas) withdrew from the Union lawfully, civilly, and peacefully, after enduring several decades of excessive and inequitable federal tariffs (taxes) heavily prejudiced against Southern commerce.[4]  Refusing to recognize the Confederate secession, Lincoln called it a "rebellion" and a "threat" to "the government" (without ever explaining exactly how "the government" was "threatened" by a lawful, civil, and peaceful secession) and acted outside the lawfully defined scope of either the office of president or the U.S. government in general, to coerce the South back into subjugation to Northern control.

The U.S. Constitution: "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation..." I think that pretty much makes the Confederacy not "lawful"...

And if I'm not mistaken the southern states had representation in national government no? Two Senators and a number of Representatives relative to state population-so "subjugation to Northern control" not really true eh?

As far as "several decades of excessive and inequitable federal tariffs" how about Article I section 9.? " No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.  No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another."  If the Congress had passed legislation that was unconstitutional wouldn't the prudent action be to let the system work for you by taking it to court?  It seems that armed insurrection is not in any way lawful, peaceful or civil.

"Secession" is just a euphemism for insurrection or revolt ...Something that is very clearly covered in the U.S. Constitution.  After all how strong of a nation would we be if states could drop out of the union willy nilly? That being said, the Declaration tells us that if our government is failing to provide for our liberty it is not only our privilege but our duty to revolt.

Now, I'm not hating on Texas, after all I live here.  Not being born here though, I find all of these Republic of Texas whack jobs and the Texas has the right to secede myths completely disconcertingly to say the least.

I was born in Arizona, do I call myself an Arizonan before an American? Nope, and neither should Texans.  We are, like it or not Americans-


   

I think Driskell would make a good President of Texas.  Even with his funny shaped head.  Falls right inline with out funny shaped hats!