The Campaign For DA


"I can't think about that right now. If I do, I'll go crazy. I'll think about that tomorrow. "

OK, we all know that Gov. Perry suggested that Texas could secede from the United States, and we all know that's not going to happen. But I'm very confused by an article from the great Bud Kennedy of the Star Telegram and a blog post by the Texas Monthly (with the brilliant name of "Secessional Healing") that argue Texas can't secede because the U.S. Constitution says that it can't. Huh? Taken to its extreme yet logical conclusion: We all pick up our guns and tell the United States, "We're through! We're forming our own Republic once again!" And then we'd all do an about face and go sheepishly into the night after the U.S. replies, "You can't do that. That's against the law!" ?


Anonymous said...

It's just a breach of contract filing away BG.

Anonymous said...

There has always been that myth that there was a clause inserted when we joined........that would allow it.

Think that little Civil War about 1864 sorta answered the question about doing it without a clause.

But then there is Perry's world!
You never know. Gov's with lot's of hair don't think like normal people.

Anonymous said...

The most amazing part of all this story is Perry's ambition to run for President. Perry will be dead, buried, rotted, returned to soil before there is another Texas governor elected as POTUS.....thanks to his predecessor.

Anonymous said...

Oh, Scarlett.

Anonymous said...

Rick Perry is just trying to get attention. He knows his days are numbered.

Vote the beady eyed Republican out.

Replace him with KBH.

wordkyle said...

Let's see...Texas decides to secede (however that would happen) and broadcasts a Declaration of Independence. At that point, Texas says that US law no longer applies, and the US says it does, and that the secession is illegal(!) If Obama stays true to his word -- try not to snicker -- Texas poses no threat and should not be subject to military action. Let the UN issue its wise and learned judgment. Of course, Obama's decision would be based on Texas immediately declaring that it is an Islamic nation.

Anonymous said...

Speaking for the other 49 states in this Union, we Triple Dog Dare you!

Put up or shut up, Rick.

Anonymous said...

We want our star back!

Anonymous said...

I don't know about the rest of you guys but going sheepishly into the night isn't really my style

Anonymous said...

For once, Texas Governor Rick Perry is correct. Many conservative and libertarian Americans agree that the right of peaceful, democratic secession by state convention is a legitimate constitutional right of every state in the union.

There are only two solutions to the massive Washington national debt now threatening the economic future and prosperity of every productive American. One is peaceful secession on the state level from the Washington Empire leaving the illegitimate federal debts with the Washington and Wall Street interests who created the debts. The second alternative is a constitutional amendment by the states to cancel the Washington national debt. The cancel the Washington Debt by 12/21/2012 Constitutional Amendment is now online at

Anonymous said...

Oh Mr. Perry! You make my teeth ache!

Please Governor, more Sam Houston and less Edward Clark.

My Other Brother Darryl

Anonymous said...

lets do it

Anonymous said...

What fools these mortals be!

--Double Fake Puck

Anonymous said...

Folks, when the U.S. government is seriously thinking about taxing the air you breathe out of your lungs because you are an evil emitter of carbon dioxide and your carbon footprint is too big, it may be time to find a new home.

Anonymous said...

I will give Hussein Obammy credit for one thing. He is uniting the Republicans and conservatives. Ron Paul 2012.

Anonymous said...

Give me a petition to secede from Obamaland and i'll sure sign it! We dont need Washington and we damn sure dont need a king.

Anonymous said...

Born, bred and raised in Fort Worth, TX and as much as I would love to see Texas as its own Republic, it ain't gonna happen! No need to even revolt, as sad as it seems, we need the Federal Government.

Anonymous said...

Only when Texas has a thousand nucular warheads and every household has 10,000 rounds of ammo for each of 50 guns in each household before we even think about it. Of course, Wise county meets most of this OK. And all of Texas, Except for the warheads. And level heads. Other than nukes, we are ready. But shotguns don't count. Too short range.
HeeeeYaaaaaa!!!!!! and ......

Anonymous said...

..wordkyle, President Obama has nothing to do with Texas and seceding. This is the least of his worries. Moron.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

9:57 Perry has NO choice but to stand up for our economy and it is built on oil, gas and agriculture. Banks, big insurance giants and GM get bail outs at the same time Obama wants a tax on oil and gas. GM is given our tax dollars while the price of their cars go up!

Back when Texas seceded from the Union, Lincoln ordered a blockade on the south trading cotton and tobacca with France. The northern states did not enjoy the robost economy of the southern states. They couldn't get it right back then just like they can't make it without our tax dollars now!

Perry is sending a message to Congress standing on Article X of the bill of rights. The civil war did not change the Bill of Rights.

If the far reaching central planning government of Obama follows through with the Cap and Trade on our oil and gas, the Northern states can just figure out where to get the fuel to heat their homes next winter. It just takes shutting down the pipeline~

Now who has the power?

wordkyle said...

1128 - A moron is someone whose mental development stops at about age eight. It would take someone whose mental development stopped somewhat earlier than that not to catch the ironic/sarcastic/satirical tone of my post. (That, however, does not controvert the essential truth of my comments.)

Anonymous said...

Texas' ability to legally secede from the union is a myth. Some might call it a lie. But Gov. Perry, being the true lying Conservative Republican he is, stands before people who apparently is highly susceptible to believing lies, and tells them Texas can just tell Washing to go to hell and secede from the union.

The white people he is speaking to have TEABAGS tied to their head because they were stupid enough to believe lies from the corporate right and Fox news. They allowed themselves to be called teabaggers. Just as been happening for the last eight years, the world is laughing at just how far they allow these crooks to take them.

Perry knows just who his base is. People who will believe lies and wear teabags on their heads when they are told to do so.

Phillip J Hubbell said...

I think America is more of an idea than a place. Once the idea has been bashed by the idiot in chief, secession won't really be leaving America just shrinking it. I think two countries with Obama as going to become more and more attractive to those who want to live free and less attractive to those who think they are entitled to other people's stuff. I say we leave this sinking ship, nationalize the guard, close the borders, shut off the oil and take away all their industry.

Yendor Repeel said...

I went and read my Constitution and couldn't find the part about not being able to secede. Must be in the enhanced longer, liberal version of the Constitution we hear so much about.

Anonymous said...

Come on people, use your imaginations, be creative. The United States, in 1840 was petrified that Mexico would open up a can of re-fried whuppass on it if the country allowed Texas to join the Union. Texas begged and pleaded for nine years to be admitted as a State. Because Texas was in and of itself a soverign country in March of 1845, it was annexed by a treaty between Texas and the United States of America. The treaty specifically declares that Texas can divide itself into a total of five different states. There is no reference to the size of the five states. So you craft a single state of Texas someplace far North and strategically unimportant...let's say the City Limits of Borger, and you name that the new "Republic of Texas" and give that little piece to the U.S., because the treaty says the Republic of Texas is always going to be a State...and then carve the rest of the State up into four different "states" and then never have those individual four states apply for Statehood. Bingo, succession. And if the President doesn't like that, you tell him, "o.k., we'll just go the five State route, just give us our 10 U.S. Senators and we'll be on our way, and oh yeah, good luck getting anything through the Senate anytime soon."

Anonymous said...

10:50 - "The Law" is found in a number of different sources. There are statutes, The Constitution, State and Federal Regulations, and then cases which interpret the above. All of this combined is "The Law". The Constitution does not specifically discuss secession; however, in Texas vs. White, the U.S. Supreme Court, in interpreting the U.S. Constitution held that the Preamble to the Constitution which contains the phrase " order to form a more perfect Union..." implies no right to secession.

Thus ends the lesson.

Anonymous said...

Phil J Hubbell...I think nobody really cares what you think.

Anonymous said...

The same people who criticized democrats for protesting George W. Bush's and vehemently calling anyone against the war Anti-American are the same people talking about giving up on the United States.

Right-wing conservatives continue blare their hypocrisy in a very loud and boastful voice.

Apparently the people talking about secession aren't American at all but possibly religious fundamentalists trying to cause a civil war between real Americans(those who have no reason to talk about secession) and non-Americans(those who want to stop being Americans).

Did a Texan screw up the U.S. so much that Texans don't even want to be a part of it?

I am waiting for someone on this blog to explain how George W. and the Republicans are so out of touch and screwed things up so much that Liberals have been allowed to take over the country and take their money away so they can't afford their white crew-cab pickups and suburbans. Please explain how one minute they think anyone who says anything against the United States should be thrown in jail and the next you just want to take your ball and go home. Anyone? Anyone?

Anonymous said...

Morning headlines: Perry ask Federales for help!

The only thing more embrassing (to God) than Perry is the fact that he could get elected gov of a major state........more than once!

Well, I have to remember our district elected Phil King.

Come on Rebpublicans. You can do better than these.

wordkyle said...

1212 - If you had anything remotely close to a legitimate premise, you might get answers to your questions.

There was no concerted outcry from Conservatives calling anyone against the war "anti-American." That is simply a false claim. The father of modern Conservatism in America, William F. Buckley, was against the war.

Those attending the tea parties -- "teabag" and "teabagging" and other variations on the word are Liberal creations when used in connection with the protests -- opposed exorbitant government spending and the tax increases imposed to pay for it. Conservatives withdrew their support for Republican congressmen in 2006 and 2008 for that very reason. Conservatives also criticized President Bush for his spending. Conservatives have been consistent in their stance on that. Hypocritical are those who condemned government spending during the Bush years (two of which were under a Democrat Congress, and who actually determined spending,) yet now say that Obama and his Democrat congress are to be commended for their spending.

Phillip J Hubbell said...

I would retort that nobody cares what Anonymous thinks either but since Anonymous is anonymous, Anonymous doesn't think much of what he/she/it thinks either.

Anonymous said...

I'll never understand why you dimwits continue to argue with WK.
You always lose.

It's mostly because he's apparently smarter than most of us, but also becauase he's usually right.

And Mr. Hubbell--

I like your style, but you're a little lazy about your blogging, don't you think?

Anonymous said...

Wordkyle is seldom correct about anything. He suffers from a mental block that makes him unable to accept "FACTS".

People have proven him wrong so many times on this blog, but he simply ignores the facts and carries on in his own little world. His words in this blog are meaningless, and a waste of pixels.

wordkyle said...

513 - Since you made me the topic of your little harangue, I feel it's appropriate for me to insist that you post evidence to back up your critcism. I would love to see what facts you suggest that I "ignored." Otherwise, you might appear as just another Liberal buffoon whose buffoonery on some occasion I was first to point out. (First among many, I'm sure.) You wouldn't want to leave readers with the impression that you're simply another pitiable sore loser, would you?

gern blansten said...

I'm not much on the Texas secession from the US, but I live out in west Texas, and I would LOVE to see a line drawn, north and south, about 10 miles east of Abilene. We could call ourselves West Texas. That way, we wouldn't lose all our tax dollars and resources to the larger cities like dallas, Ft Worth, Austin, San Antonio, etc.
I'm SICK and TIRED of west Texas having to pay taxes and give our resources to the larger cities, and then get the table scraps when it comes to representation! Even the wind energy resources, which could help our areas greatly, are being used to provide electricity to the larger cities.


Denney Crane said...

The "great Bud Kennedy"... you gotta be shi((in me!

If he can't urinate on a subject, other than a restaurant commentary, it's not newsworthy!

Anonymous said...

OK just a couple of questions for you secessionist advocates:
1. Ya'll were admitted to the US in 1845 but you chose to abandon the Union in 1860. When you were readmitted to the US in 1865, those earlier "conditions" of admission became null and void.
2. Are you not the "patriotic" souls who complained about Obama not wearing a flag pin? That was supposed to make him unpatriotic. What does make ya'll?
3. Aren't you the big advocates of the pledge of "allegiance"? Remember the phrase "one country, indivisible...."?

Geeze you guys are kinda dumb and inconsistent.

Anonymous said...

True 11:10 - good points. Can you imagine if Obama made the same statements about Illinois seceding from US that Gov. Good-hair made about Texas seceding? These same people would be ready to tar and feather Obama, literally.

And 5:13 - I agree totally with your assessment of Wordkyle. He's like a lawyer that tries to frame the argument around certain issues. Then when others remind him he doesn't get to frame the argument & that there are other issues that are valid, he does what he just did in his reply back to you. He uses a derogatory name to insult anyone with an opinion that happens to be on the liberal side of the fence and insists that no one has ever proven him wrong.

Which I guess you can't prove anyone's opinions are wrong, since they are just that - OPINIONS. But WK THINKS he PROVES everyone wrong that doesn't agree with his opinions.....which makes me laugh.

THen he ask you to show where he ignored facts. He can be amusing.

Several times on this blog WK has made the argument in detail that there was no such thing as the 4 years of SURPLUS in the Clinton administration's last 4 budget years. There is no reputable Economist or political scientist that doesn't recognize the fact of Clinton's budget surplus. But WK creates his own way to define budget surplus - there he goes framing the argument the WK way - & somehow comes out with the conclusion that Clinton never had a budget surplus.

Stay with me - coming to the interesting part - anytime I have checked WK's sources that he uses to back up his opinions, it has been a conservative blog with a conservative agenda. This week, when he was complaining about Obama's deficits he had a link that took you to a chart of recent budget surpluses and deficits, as well as PROJECTED deficits.... & guess what? Right on that chart, that WK used himself are the last 2 years of the Clinton surpluses (2000 & 2001) and if you could have seen 1999 & 1998, you would have seen 2 more years of surplus. And yes, I know Bush was in office in 2001, but the budget deficits and surpluses show up the year after the money has been spent.)

ANyway, check it out - it's on WK's comments on the "Thursday Morning Random Thoughts" under WK's post.

Man, I went on way too long. Sorry.

Anonymous said...


The only thing pertinent in your remark was the last sentence

Anonymous said...

On the contrary, 9:30, I found the post very pertinent and telling.

wordkyle said...

912 - At least you put forth some effort, even if you're wrong. First things first: I reference sites that have the information I'm discussing. I don't care how you feel about the site itself, it's the data I'm concerned with. Your task should be simple: refute the data. If you can.

Now to your rather verbose point. The Clinton "surplus" has always been mentioned in the context of "Clinton had a surplus and Bush squandered it." This implies that there was money left over for Bush to "squander." Here I will (once again) cite that conservative rag USA Today: In 2005, the government's own accountants audited the federal books using standard accounting procedures. "The Clinton administration reported a surplus of $559 billion in its final four budget years. The audited numbers showed a deficit of $484 billion." Another telling argument is that under Clinton, the national debt increased every year. If there were ever a surplus that could be squandered, the debt should have been reduced. It wasn't. Where did they keep that "surplus?"

I have never said that no one has ever proven me wrong; I simply ask those who claim I'm wrong to back up their arguments. Apparently, to Liberals this is akin to insulting their mother. It always provokes responses like yours. (Incidentally, If you'll actually read my previous post, I never insulted 513 or called him a name.)

You seem very angry. Is it that off-putting to you when someone refuses to be bullied?

Anonymous said...

WK - Just because I don't agree with your arguments doesn't mean I am angry. I'm a very happy person, actually.

Nevertheless, I still must call you out when you said you never insulted 5:13 or called him a name??? You said (& I quote) -

"Otherwise, you might appear as just another Liberal buffoon whose buffoonery on some occasion I was first to point out. (First among many, I'm sure.) You wouldn't want to leave readers with the impression that you're simply another pitiable sore loser, would you?"
End Quote.

Sounded insulting to me...

But to some of us on this blog, to get insulted by you is actually a badge of honor, so no worries.

BTW, your manipulation of your words trying to say you never actually insulted 5:13 is rather Clintonesque at his lowest.
Irony there?

wordkyle said...

242 - I chose my words carefully. I never called 513 a name, nor did I insult him. Everything was hypothetical. The words "might appear" and "leave the impression" are the clues, Colonel Mustard. I said you, for example, seem angry based on the tone of your earlier post. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with me. Does my conclusion that you seemed angry, actually make you angry? If 513 is insulted by the possible consequences of his action or inaction, that's not my doing. I merely pointed out the possibilities.

When someone mentions my name simply to impugn my credibility -- 513 made no mention at all of the topic under discussion -- I believe I am justified in requesting that he support his statements. You attack me personally rather than refute my arguments. I guess that's the easier route.

When you guys use this tactic, I'm reminded of Rule #12 from the Liberal playbook (Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals): "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Anonymous personal attacks against your opposition is an old Liberal technique, as I well know from my experiences on this board. Anonymous posters never have to stand behind their comments; when confronted, they simply disappear into the faceless crowd of other anons.

You at least used Clinton's name in proper context. Congratulations.

Anonymous said...

Gern, West Texas is a tax sinkhole. Without tax money from other areas, a sparsely populated area would not have all-weather roads, telephone service, or electricity.

Oh, and please secede:

-- If Texas were not in the Union, the Democrats would currently have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate -- or at least they would once Al Franken gets seated. This is because, in a 98-seat Senate, only 59 votes would be required to break a filibuster.

-- If Texas were not in the Union, the Republicans would operate from a significantly weakened position in the House, since the net 8-vote advantage their congressional delegation gives them in the state (they have 20 seats to the Democrats' 12) is by far their largest.

-- If Texas were not in the Union, George W. Bush would never have become President in 2000 -- not because he'd be constitutionally ineligible (Bush, despite his Texas twang, was born in posh New Haven, Connecticut). Rather, he wouldn't have had enough Electoral Votes to defeat Al Gore.

-- If Texas were not in the Union, Barack Obama would have won the Electoral College 389-147 instead of 365-173 (note that there are two fewer votes total, because there would be two fewer Senators). The vast majority of Texas' electoral votes would be redistributed to lib'rul states like California (which would go from having 55 electoral votes to 59) and New York (34 rather than 31):

California 55 --> 59 (+4)
New York 31 --> 34 (+3)
Florida 27 --> 29 (+2)
Illinois 21 --> 23 (+2)
Michigan 17 --> 19 (+2)
Arizona 10 --> 11 (+1)
Connecticut 7 --> 8 (+1)
Georgia 15 --> 16 (+1)
Indiana 11 --> 12 (+1)
Kentucky 8 --> 9 (+1)
Maryland 10 --> 11 (+1)
Massachusetts 12 --> 13 (+1)
Mississippi 6 --> 7 (+1)
Montana 3 --> 4 (+1)
New Jersey 15 --> 16 (+1)
Ohio 20 --> 21 (+1)
Oklahoma 7 --> 8 (+1)
Oregon 7 --> 8 (+1)
Pennsylvania 21 --> 22 (+1)
S. Carolina 8 --> 9 (+1)
Virginia 13 --> 14 (+1)
Utah 4 --> 5 (+1)
Washington 11 --> 12 (+1)
Wisconsin 10 --> 11 (+1)

-- If Texas were not in the Union, Bush would still have defeated John Kerry 269-267, but Kerry would have an easier go of things, winning the election if he'd won either Iowa or New Mexico; he would not have had to win Ohio or Florida.

-- If Texas were not in the Union, there'd be a good case for making football an Olympic sport, which would sure as hell beat rhythmic gymnastics.

Anonymous said...

Wow, 2:42 - bet WK is going bonkers for a response to this.

Let us all prepare for some amazing continuing research!!

Denney Crane said...

4:51 PM is a genius on the fringe

I'm glad no one challenges me like they do Wordy... the secret to ending an unending discussion is by telling them to KMA.

He's much more the gentleman than I.

Anonymous said...

Denney Crane - He appears a gentleman to you because you agree with his politics most of the time. To many of us that don't agree with WK's politics, he appears to be an arrogant, manipulative, deceptive pompous arse who is self-delusional.

Anonymous said...

Oh dear, Wordkyle, I was so mistaken. I see the difference now. - It wasn't an insult; it was just a HYPOTHETICAL insult.

But....since your hypothetical insult was based on the hypothesis that it would be a (real) insult if 5:13 did not post and back up his argument, and it does NOT appear 5:13 did that (I'm not 5:13), then does that make it a real insult now? I am so confused by your word play word kyle.

You are so clever, WK.


Colonel Mustard

(I'll give you this - Calling me Colonel Mustard was pretty funny.)

Denney Crane said...

7:12 PM

"...arrogant, manipulative, deceptive pompous arse who is self-delusional."

That sounds like my wife!

wordkyle said...

Colonel M. - Thank goodness you finally caught on. I was actually trying to do 513 a favor, so he wouldn't (completely out of ignorance or naivete) give readers the mistaken (is that better?) impression that he was a Liberal buffoon and a pitiable sore loser because he made accusations against me that he couldn't substantiate. I would do as much for you. (See? I'm a giver.)

Now, until (or unless) Mr. Anon 513 presents his case, that's quite enough about me.

712 - See Denny Crane's acronymic response.

wordkyle said...

I changed my mind. I finished a more important project (watching the last 20 minutes of You Don't Mess With The Zohan) so I have time to deal with trivia. 712 - You threw out several adjectives (and a noun) to describe how you believe I appear to those who disagree with my politics.

I defy you to 1) define each word and b) explain how it applies to me. I think you thoughtlessly used words that you really don't understand, because you've seen other people use them. Prove me wrong.

Anonymous said...

wordy, I'm not 7:12 but I understand the adjectives he used and they seem to me to be perfectly well selected and applicable.

wordkyle said...

957 - How so?

Anonymous said...

Good grief WK -
Priorities WK - You're not at the top of my priorities to spend much time responding all about you. But here a few quick ones that are evident in this chain.....

Challenging me to define words I use to describe you & prove that they suit you implies that I could not 1)know the meaning of the words or 2)know how to correctly use them in regard to you. That is an example of your arrogance & pomposity.

Finding it hard to believe that you come across the way I described you to people who don't agree with you is an example of your self-delusion, as is your narrow mindedness that if someone disagrees with you that they must be of inferior intellect or just wrong.

I got no more time.
I'm done.

Anonymous said...

Hey 6:52 - think Wordy is a bit rattled. Three posts in a row?

Good grief is right.


wordkyle said...

652 - So the fact that you can't support your accusations is what makes those accusations true? Interesting. I'm not out to trick you -- mine was a straightforward request to (once again) support your claims with evidence. My sincere belief, which I (and I'm sure some other readers) still hold, is that your use of such overused buzz adjectives indicates laziness of thought and your striving to inflict damage (failed) more than reflect accuracy or honesty. The reasonable conclusion is that you do the same with your comments about politics. (Applicable to all anons who use angry buzzwords.)

Each of the adjectives you used to describe me, depending on your definition, could be accurate at different times. However, you couldn't prove that by your supporting evidence. So far all you seem to have as "proof" is the support a number of anons who don't care for me or my opinions.

One point which you missed by a mile -- I've never claimed to be superior to anyone else in any way. That should be the scariest part to Liberals and the most encouraging to Conservatives -- I'm just a regular guy. There are millions more like me, but who are better mannered.

(Eventually the parliamentarian will bring you all back to the main topic, rather than your personal opinions of me.)

Anonymous said...

It is indeed unfortunate that ole wordy chooses to entertain a multilog about him while ignoring the stupidity of the original issue - secession of the state of Texas from the Union. Geeze, wordy seems to think he is bigger than ANY issue. He's just wrong, again.