Making Texas A “No Fly Zoneâ€
The state house of representatives of the State of Texas recently passed HB 1937, a bill that would make the TSA’s unconstitutional electronic undressing and physical groping of airline passengers illegal in the State of Texas. In other words, it seeks to make illegal, acts which, because they are unconstitutional are already illegal for those who still hold the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
Officials of the federal government responded by threatening to make Texas a “No Fly Zone†because the TSA would have no choice but to ground all flights whose passengers had not been subjected to their brand of physical and sexual abuse.
Sadly, the state senate, of the once-proud State of Texas, led by an establishment politician with loftier ambitions (Lt. Governor David Dewhurst), tucked tail and refused to pass the bill.
In the past weeks, I have been proud of my state for pushing back against an out-of-control federal government in several areas, particularly against an overreaching EPA. Now, my pride is turning to shame.
A standoff between one of the most powerful states and the out-of-control federal government is exactly what we need right now because, such a standoff would force the general public to sit up and pay attention to what is really happening to our liberty. In fact, it may well have led to my preferred interim solution – the secession of Texas from the federal union.
To remind those who know little of the history of Texas, it started life as an independent Republic after having won its freedom from the dictatorial government of Mexico. Several years later, at the urging of Texas hero, president and governor, Sam Houston, Texas joined the United States. But, it entered the union with the proviso that it could, by its own choice, either withdraw from the union or divide itself into as many as 5 different states. Some assume the Civil War secession and subsequent re-entry into the union canceled this option. On the surface, this might seem valid – except – the position of the Federal Union side in the Civil War was that the Confederate States never actually left the union because they were not allowed to – instead, they were federal states in rebellion against the federal government. This being the case, Texas has yet to exercise its legal option to secede.
I do understand that secession would be a messy affair but, given our current national course toward certain destruction, it seems to me a chance worth taking.
Were Texas to secede, I have little doubt that a number of other states would soon follow our lead. This could well result in an interim solution to the huge differences that divide our nation today. In short, we could end up with two nations, one favoring a republican form of government based on the original United States Constitution and another favoring a government based on some form of democratic socialism (can you say oxymoron?).
There is no reason two such nations could not exist side-by-side as has been the case in Europe. It would also furnish the ultimate learning experience for a lot of Americans because they would then be able to see the two systems compete in similar environments and I have not one shred of doubt which system would succeed over the long term and which would fail.
Alas, the attitude toward liberty that once stiffened the backs of heroes at such places as the Alamo, Goliad, Gonzales, and San Jacinto seems sadly lacking in the Texas Senate. So, unless there is some serious push-back from the citizens of Texas, this opportunity to have led the nation will pass us by and we will join the ranks of other states who go, tail between legs, begging the feds to give us back a little of what was ours to begin with and putting up with whatever they choose to dish out in return.
It did not have to end this way.
Troy L Robinson
Good post, Troy. An opportunity lost…
My only challenge would be your characterization of “democratic socialism” as an oxymoron. I would suggest that mob rule is precisely what socialism is. Our founders never dreamed that their posterity might be so foolish as to allow tax spenders to vote. Only property owners, who were the only ones taxed at the time, had the franchise. They abhorred the very notion of a “democracy” and bequeathed us a “republic” instead. Progressive President Woodrow Wilson was the first to refer to America as a Democracy in a State of the Union address. 1913 was the worst year in our history, and our Liberty has steadily eroded ever since. â—„Daveâ–º
You are correct about my misuse of “oxymoron” to describe democratic socialism. You are correct also that pure democracy is a form of mob rule. What led me to use the term is the historical irony that nations that have “democratic” as part of their names are invariably dictatorships where neither the people or the mob have any influence whatever. Thanks for trying to keep me straight.
As I try to understand our history better, I am working on a rating of our presidents. Given what I have learned so far, Woodrow Wilson takes the prize as the very worst of the lot — although there is still time for Obama to move Woody down to second place on my list.
Troy