“Texas Has No Right To Secede” – Yeah RIGHT!

The following is a beautiful retort from constitutional authors and scholar, Michael Badnarik, about whether or not Texas as the ‘right’ to secede from the United States.  You can read his fabulous books and take one of his classes, to dive deeper into our United States Constitution and the meaning of ‘individual rights’.

From Michael Badnarik:

I haven’t given my first presentation favoring Texas secession yet, and already there are people who insist that Texas does not have the authority to disassociate itself from the United States. This proves that those who do not study history are disturbed and confused. Here is a comment found somewhere on Facebook:

“Texas has NO right to secede. They tried it once and lost -the Civil War. They do have the right to split themselves into up to four smaller states, by the treaty when they joined the United States. Are Texans willing to take on their pro-rated share of the U.S. National debt? Would Trump want Texas to build a wall between itself and the rest of the current United States? Would they pay for all of the current federal institutions located in Texas?”

Allow me to address this response statement by statement.

“Texas has NO right to secede”
This is an emotional response. ALL of the evidence suggests otherwise. The Law of Nations, written in 1787, was the most important book on the law of nations in the eighteenth century. It sets out with the idea “that political societies or nations live, with respect to each other, in a reciprocal independence. They are subject to the natural law. Each sovereign state claims and actually possesses an absolute independence [from] all the others.” The explicitly stated purpose and principle of the United Nations Charter is “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples…” Self-determination is defined as “freedom to live as one chooses” and “the determining by the people of the form their government shall have”. It appears that “Secession Deniers” (a person who refuses to accept the existence, truth, or validity of something despite evidence or general support for it) have never read the Declaration of Independence. The first phrase of that document says, “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…” When one group “dissolves the political bands which have connected them with another” they secede! The Declaration of Independence is a secession document! If Texas isn’t allowed to secede, then logically the United States can’t either, and we are still colonies subject to the British Crown.

“They tried it once and lost -the Civil War”
This is a very common misconception based solely on opinion. In every separation, one party is leaving, and the other party is being left behind. Your opinion is based on which group you are in. As Americans were proudly recount our “American Revolution” as the beginning of freedom and liberty. England was not happy about losing the natural resources found in the colonies, and it tried to renege on our independence by waging the War of 1812. Texans are extremely proud of those who defended the Alamo, and immediately point to the Battle of San Jacinto as our victorious support of the Texas Declaration of Independence. Another example of secession that refutes the idea that we tried it once and lost. We’ve tried it twice. We won the first, and lost the second. Rumor has it that the third time is the charm.

“They do have the right to split themselves into up to four smaller states, by the treaty when they joined the United States.”
This statement is almost correct. According to TSL.Texas.gov, “In another compromise designed to overcome objections to annexation, the 1845 joint resolution that admitted Texas to the Union provided that Texas could be divided into as many as five states.”

“Are Texans willing to take on their pro-rated share of the U.S. National debt?”
The short answer is probably not. Not if I’m elected President of the Republic of Texas, anyway. The U.S. National debt is based on fraud, perpetrated by bankers against all Americans. I can’t give you something that I don’t have. Neither can Congress. Congress never had the authority to print money, therefore it is logically impossible for them to grant that authority to the Federal Reserve in 1913. “The Fed” has assumed a monopoly over counterfeiting our money with the worthless, fiat, Federal Reserve Note. “The Fed” prints money out of thin air, they loan it to the federal government, and then the American population is expected to pay the debt AND the growing interest on that debt. This an impossible task based on fraud. There is no statue of limitations on fraud, and the U.S. debt should be repudiated, and the bankers and tricksters that concocted this scheme should be imprisioned for life. It is a fraudulent debt that no sane Texan would be willing to pay.

“Would Trump want Texas to build a wall between itself and the rest of the current United States?”
Excuse me, but this is an asinine question, with no intellectual merit, intended to be inflammatory. Further evidence that the response to my post is purely emotional. However, if Donald Trump wants a wall between his remaining 49 states and Texas, he’ll have to build it himself. I don’t want a wall because I know that hard working Americans that long to be free and independent will be migrating to Texas as quickly as they can pack a suitcase. Additionally, all the socialist, communist, and other collectivist riffraff will be fleeing Texas in the other direction. I am highly in favor of both migrations, and a wall would be a temporary impediment to that.

“Would they pay for all of the current federal institutions located in Texas?”
Again, the short answer is no. Those familiar with Constitution know that the federal government can only purchase land “with the consent of the state legislature”. Assuming that the Constitution is a contract between Texas and the federal government, then the federal government has violated that contract since they are required to “guarantee to each state a Republican form of government”. The United States is operating as a communist country because all ten planks of the Communist Manifesto are enforced in this country already. The federal government has violated the contract, and Texas would be exceeding lenient to allow the federal government to maintain control of its offices and territory within Texas. We might allow them to continue to occupy Fort Hood, for example, but the federal government would have to pay us whatever rent we decide would be appropriate. To assume that Texas would pay for federal institutions is ludicrous.

Texas secession is inevitable. The only thing that would prevent it is if a vast majority of Americans suddenly woke up to the fact that the federal government is out of control, and surprised Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton by voting for Gary Johnson. From my vantage point, I think Texas secession is far more likely.

Click here to leave comments on my website.
(Please note that comments are moderated, and will not appear on the site until I approve them. This is to avoid spambots from cluttering up the site. I always do my best to check every hour after the newsletter goes out. I encourage you to return later to read comments left by others.)

Women In Charge – Putting Ourselves in Charge of Birth, and Control

iStock_000005897108Medium

There was a meme, it said, “If you didn’t want old elitist men making health care decisions – you shouldn’t have put the federal government in charge of the health care system”.

This transcends the puppet-show of “Right” versus “Left” – “Republican” versus “Democrat”.  This is about common sense.

When it comes to a woman’s body (or, any body for that matter) – the government (a collection of individuals who use taxes, law, and force to implement policy)  shouldn’t have any control.  Period.  When government (which, currently, in our country, is a large portion of old, elitist men – both Republican and Democrat) decides what you can and can’t have for your health – this can be really dangerous for women.  Why in the world would we let them decide what is best?

A woman is best served when she is in complete control of her body. her health care, and her decision whether or not to take birth control.  It being her responsibility, it should be a right to be able to pay for that – without the government being involved.  It is a service, a choice, a health-care decision. and something that strong women would WANT to pay for.  Being able to pay for it yourself means that no one can tell you what you can or cannot do – it is your money, your body, your pocketbook.

If women were able to keep more of the money that they earn (e.g. abolish the federal income taxes that go to nothing of benefit to Americans and women), then they could make a lot more choices what they do with that money.  It should never be in the government’s hands.  And, it should never be in a corporation’s hands.  People should always be able to make a personal choice what they do and don’t want to do with their body – taking healthcare out of the federal government’s hands – is a great start to protecting women.

Old, elitist men, who refuse to bring in the next generation of leaders and instead have decided to die in their chairs, sitting in Congress – doing NOTHING for the young people of this country – will not fix our problems.  It is up to us.  And if we wan’t to find solutions, we are going to have to get rid of the puppet show that the Republicans and the Democrats are putting on concerning health care.  Women could be very good leaders by taking responsibility for their health care and getting important decisions out of the government’s hands.  It is your morality, your money, your body, your pocketbook, your natural right – protect it – and get government out of it.

Department of In-Justice

At the federal level of government, the “justice system” – or the judicial branch of government – is engaging in a dangerous use of force against dissenters of the administration.

What is happening with Lois Lerner and the unfathomable loss of her email communications illustrates the corruption in the justice department – there is none – for people who are part of the “us” crowd, that are protected by the executive branch of government, the President, and his Cabinet.  Aren’t there laws for federal agencies to keep records?  If these emails were miraculously found – they would most likely show the dangerous use of a government agency – the IRS – to stop and quiet people, organizations, and companies that are against the current administration.

This use of force by the government is not only unconstitutional (and most people on the true liberal left can agree with this), but it is a dangerous usurpation of power that throws our country further into the far-right (Fascism) and far-left (Marxism) use of the presidency and executive branch to stop individuals from exercising their natural rights, and having the right to due process in a court of law with a jury of their peers.

What can you expect, when the “justice system” is NOT made up of people who have worked for Americans as peace officers, judges, or armed service members – but instead – as fund-raisers.  Eric Holder was a key fundraiser (bundler) for President Obama.  If the people who raise the most money get to be the people who use the hammer of justice – then isn’t there a lot of opportunity for those people, like Eric Holder, to use the justice system to hurt or “get back at” people, companies, and organizations that they dislike?  I believe it is a conflict of interest.  And the legislative branch of government – our Congressmen and Senators – should be doing a much better job of this.

This is about social justice, and equality – what is good for the American people should be the same standards that are applied to anyone in office, making a living thanks to the taxpayers of our country.  If WE are required to keep our tax information for 3 years or more, why isn’t the IRS required to keep its communications having to do with our tax information for 3 years or more?   There is no excuse – and there is injustice being served by our “justice” department.

If this is the corruption, and half of Americans don’t pay federal income taxes – WHY ARE YOU?

Command and Control – Let's Bring It Closer to Home

I am reading Eric Schlosser’s (one of my favorite authors) Command and Control. And now, more than ever, I am convinced of the absolute necessity of de-centralizing the command and control of our government, and even our military.

We hear the saying, “every great empire falls”, and there is truth to this based on the history of countries that de-base their currency (like we are).  But my country, is an experiment.  And no where else in the world is there a Constitution like ours, nor a diverse and resilient set of people like Americans.  Our federal government may fail us, but that does not mean that we won’t survive it and come back thriving.

Stop here if you don’t like change or optimism (or idealism).

A “decapitation” attack – which would be aimed at our country’s civilian and military leadership – could cause immediate confusion and weakness by any enemy force.  Forget about who the “enemy” is – because we will disagree and argue about that.  Instead, let’s ask ourselves – what can we do to prepare for this?

1. Make sure that States and local governments can operate independently of the federal government.

2. Make sure that State’s have control over their own militia – known now as the National Guard.

3. Make sure that commerce can go on – even if the federal reserve note (U.S. dollar bill) has no value.

That is an excellent start.  Not only will more efficiency be gained by having a smaller federal government that can focus on certain important issues, but the American people will have more command and control when it comes to defense and protecting their property.

When anything gets too big – it fails.  I don’t want the federal government or the military to fail.  Companies and even organizations have had huge success by de-centralizing decision-making and project-controlling.  Our country will see success too, and the motion is already in place for this to happen.

Tisha Casida is an Unaffiliated (Independent) candidate for U.S. House, Colorado District Three.  She is an advocate for protecting property rights and  a firm believer protecting individuals, farmers, and small business owners by making sure that important decisions affecting them can be made at the State and local level of government where the actions of government are more transparent and “officials” are easier to hold accountable.

Any Liberal Should Be Pissed – Case: Nuclear Option

What’s Good for the Goose is Not Good for the Gander

 

The Senate using the so-called “Nuclear Option” is a blatant one-finger salute to the American people.  By setting this precedent of making up their own rules to benefit their own party’s agenda – they have hurt everyone, including those that believe in “democracy”, even though the United States is set up as a republic – not a democracy  (democracy DOES destroy the vote and voice of the minority).

 

Republicans will retaliate – at some point – and this further hurts the American people.  The two corrupt parties who rule the “law” in Washington, D.C. have taken a dangerous step towards eroding what “rule of law” we have next.  Including the ignorance of Constitutional law, that is set up to protect the minority, to protect the individual, and to protect the property-owner – all of which suffer under the Nuclear Option, where Senators have claimed themselves able to re-write the law as they see fit.

 

Democrats claim to be “liberal” and “progressive”.  Democrats claim to “protect minorities” and protect the people who have a hard time using their voice.  On November 21, 2013, Democrats and the Democratic Party shut the minority up – by abandoning the rule of law.  Anyone who claims themselves to be liberal, should be infuriated.  Republicans would be guilty of the same fatal offense, and most likely will be at some point, to retaliate.  This infighting does nothing for YOU.  It only benefits political parties, that have a stranglehold on all three branches of government.

 

Today is a very good day to dump your party.  If you believe in either liberalism or conservatism, neither the Democratic or Republican Party are doing anything to further your philosophy.

The "World" Set a Red Line

President Obama, said, in defending his potential future action to strike Syria, that it was not he who set the “red line” that was crossed.  He said the world set that red line.

 

I didn’t set it.  I don’t agree with it.  And large numbers of people don’t – is that not part of the World?

 

Okay, so the “leaders” of countries represent all of their people.  (In America, the President is NOT supposed to be the sole executive leader, but we are moving there fast.)  That would mean, if every country had a leader who agreed with President Obama, that would equate to 196 “leaders” – representing 6.9 billion people.  Very few “leaders” with massive representation can be a very dangerous thing.

 

The TRUTH is that while we look up at the television or bow our heads to the speakers to hear our leaders speak – it is YOU AND I who are responsible for our thoughts, actions, and destiny.

 

And the President is NOT MY KING  I do not want more war.  Congress – please take note that the responsibility for any action or inaction lays on your shoulders and you WILL be judged by your actions.  You are supposed to stop tyranny – you are supposed to stop executive rule.  THIS IS YOUR LAST RED LINE TO CROSS!

– Tisha T. Casida

PATHETIC

Most of our “leadership” in Washington s pathetic.

Just pathetic, and I would use adjectives to describe the pathetic-ness but then kids could not read this, and they should as this is their future that these worthless politicians are waging on un-winnable wars.

Unbelievable.. Senator John McCain, you are pathetic.  Sickening.  You can actually joke about paying poker on your smart phone while you wage a decision about war that could bring the United States into a conflict that could be devastating to our economy and security?  It is not a joke and it is not funny – I despise you and what you portray as being a leader to the United States of America.  And you are not alone, but since i just witnessed you snickering on “The Situation Room,” on CNN, you are the target of choice.  I wish you had the morality to be humbled, but obviously you are so out of touch that there is no hope of reaching any type of reality, and the words I write are solely to fuel the fire that will out-flame your propaganda and lies that you think will evade the thinking minds of the American public.

You said that we “make the world a much better place”.  How about we do that by making the United States of America a beacon and light of freedom and NOT by bombing the smithereens out of nation-states that have completely different thought patterns and belief systems than we do?  Why don’t we secure OUR country and OUR nation?  Why in the world are we arming terrorists in the name of fighting terrorism?  Who are the terrorists?!?!?!

You “key Republicans” that are funded and protected by the powerful military-industrial complex are not conservative and no protectors of the Constitution,  How dare you risk the lives of our young – how dare you risk our lives, our prosperity, our Country.  I pray that Providence prevails and destroys your ego, your wealth, and your worth.  You have no business representing our American people WHO DO NOT WANT MORE WAR.  May you fail, and may the country and our young people be protected from your disgusting interpretation of a free country and a free World.

– Tisha T. Casida

You Can’t Stop Violence By Banning Guns

Let’s get one thing straight – this is not about high-powered weapons, this is absolutely about attacking the American people’s right to bear arms. People will say “Why in the world would anybody not in the military need military-type rifles?” The simple answer is – we want to make sure we never have a military that turns on its own people at the executive order of a President, or a command from a military officer. It is a check and balance. Not to mention, when there is economic turmoil and chaos, there are these things called “gangs” that tend to form and assault people and their property. These are cases where being amply armed protects the innocent.

 

The military is made up of men and women who are the same human beings that make up society. We are equal. If people in the military or police force have access to guns – any type of democratic weapon, like pistols and rifles – then people in society have the right to that same type of access.

 

For the people who desire peace, who say that banning guns will stop violence, I have three questions for you:

 

1.) Who is the decider about who has a right to own a gun or not, and is there any opportunity for error in decision-making?

2.) Do you really think any law is going to stop bad people from breaking the law? Isn’t that is why it is called “breaking the law”, it doesn’t matter what laws are made, bad people break laws?

3.) If the President and Congress have armed security guards and can protect their own lives – why can’t I protect my life? Isn’t my life just as valuable as our “representatives”? And aren’t our representatives supposed to protect us? Not just themselves?

 

I feel for the people who vehemently attack guns with such anger and disgust, when their real anger should be directed to the conditions that make it possible for violence to occur. A heavily armed population actually deters violence – as noted in the very high crime rates in Washington, D.C. where you have to right to protect yourself, versus Arizona, where you have a right to protect yourself and show people that you are able to do so.

 

It doesn’t matter if the weapon is a pistol, a rifle, a bow and arrow, or a knife – when bad people want to do bad things, no laws stop them. The worst of people we have to fear are governments and the military, as they often already work outside of the Constitution (the law) – therefore, if the government and military have access to high-powered rifles, so do the American people. We are equal. And we must keep one another in check.

Collectives Always Erode the Rights of the Individual

I will say it until I cannot physically irk the words out any longer. A collective – be it a political party, an organization, or a government – eventually attempts to use force to erode the natural rights of the individual. It is just the way that human nature works.

 

The National Rifle Association (NRA), bending to pressure from media, government, and individuals said today that they are “prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again”.

 

I am hopeful that this means to actively participate in protecting their membership’s individual and natural right to protect themselves. Tragically – men, women, and children die every day because they are unable to protect themselves, all over the world. If our country (and in particular this organization) wanted to do something great, it would leave collective bargaining and “working with government” between individuals and their representatives. The NRA is a collective, and it will most likely eventually use its membership and “force” to make something “happen” in Washington, D.C.

 

Individuals, acting as individuals responsible for themselves, are the cure for our country’s ills. Government cannot help or save us – organizations like the NRA or the Komen Foundation cannot help or save us. Collectives – big groups of people – can become forces for a cause that eventually erodes your individual right. Our individual right to protect ourselves is on the line. What will you do?

Waldo Canyon Disaster – Where Are Our Troops?

I just finished listening to a press conference on the Waldo Canyon Fire. Someone in the audience asked (I am paraphrasing) ‘Why can’t we call on the armed forces since there are so many stationed here – they can help with this type of event – why can’t we call on them and why are they somewhere else when we need them here?’ – to which this question received an applause from the people listening.

The answer was something to the effect, that although there are many trained firefighters within the armed forces, stationed there in Colorado Springs (and/or deployed) – that there are federal laws that prevent our local officials from “calling on them” until our local and State resources are “exhausted”.

This is exactly what is wrong with how our disaster-management is set up. The pyramid structure that requires top-down dictation to localities that take the initial brunt of any disaster is a formula for disaster in itself. The Colorado National Guard should NOT be in Iraq and Afghanistan in fire-fights – they should be fighting fires in OUR State in Colorado Springs, and in other communities that have been so terribly affected by Mother Nature’s (and arsonists’) wrath.

What are these mighty laws that have taken our own troops and made them inaccessible to our own homes’ security? The Department of Homeland Security is one of the culprits – if you are going to protect “the homeland” – why in the world aren’t you protecting these people’s homes who are burning? So much tax-payer money in resources that are inaccessible to the taxpayers! This is unconscionable – there is no reason that more of our own resources that we pay for should not be more accessible to these people who desperately need it. Now! Not after the disaster gets “bad enough” to warrant the “help” and mighty hand of the federal government that is putting more money, time and effort in fire-fights than fighting our fires.

I am proposing and supporting legislation that brings home all State ‘National’ guards so that Governors and localities can access to these men and women who serve in the interest of their own State – and not the federal government.

In Liberty,

 

Tisha

And now I am watching, on 48 Hours Mystery, they are showing a soldier in prison with PTSD among other issues that came back from Iraq and killed his girlfriend because “you can take the soldier out of the war, but you can’t take the war out of the soldier”. Why on earth do we have soldiers doing the unthinkable, when they could be hear at home doing what they train to do – protect the American people?

 

CREATIVE DESIGN FROM BROOKLYN

Big or small, we’ve got a solution when you need it. Our advanced service and support tools provide step-by-stepinstructions without being put on hold or waiting in line.