Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Beany

Texas and the Obama takeover

181 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beany

Spud I can tell you that once THIS kind of conflict got going, Texas would NOT stand alone. And a lot of those very SEALS and GB's would be FROM Texas. No, it'd be best if the folks in DC got their heads out of their arses and started to act like the servants they were intended to be, not the TYRANTS they have become.

When I'm unhappy with the government I participate in elections, I campaign, I register people to vote, I work the phone banks. I suffered through Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and Bush, and was thoroughly ticked at all of them, and not once did I ever think that it was time for an armed revolution. I could spend way too much time here enumerating the causes of my disgust. Bottom line, you win some, you lose some, the pendulum swings one way and then the other. The current folks in DC and elsewhere were elected by the majority of voters. You may not be happy with it, I may not be happy with it, but in a democracy, the majority rules. Well, except for the 2nd Bush re-election, when the Supreme Court named him president.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KariW

When I'm unhappy with the government I participate in elections, I campaign, I register people to vote, I work the phone banks. I suffered through Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and Bush, and was thoroughly ticked at all of them, and not once did I ever think that it was time for an armed revolution. I could spend way too much time here enumerating the causes of my disgust. Bottom line, you win some, you lose some, the pendulum swings one way and then the other. The current folks in DC and elsewhere were elected by the majority of voters. You may not be happy with it, I may not be happy with it, but in a democracy, the majority rules. Well, except for the 2nd Bush re-election, when the Supreme Court named him president.

Well put Beany! :yes:

Edited by KariW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

Is this what conspiracy theorists have come down to? Are standards so low, all they can do now is claim that, in the state with the highest number of bases and military personnel already present, a publicly announced, publicly posted, completely transparent military exercise, in conjunction with all local law enforcement, with state-level option to opt out, on remote and undeveloped land, is somehow a plan to over a part of the country that is already a part of the country, without as much as even vague mutterings about anything otherwise?

How is a military supposed to take over a country when all the soldiers are in remote land, avoiding interfering with the local population as much as possible? How is this a conspiracy when the reason people know about it is because it was publicly posted? What is the purpose of putting 6 states into martial law?

More than anything else, this event highlights the world of comic book villainy that conspiracy theorists dwell in.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KariW

I think some Texans are still just a little bit upset about Fed. Gov't agencies conducting raids at Secessionist meetings and taking down names, fingerprinting members, and confiscating personal property within the past few months.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

When I'm unhappy with the government I participate in elections, I campaign, I register people to vote, I work the phone banks. I suffered through Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and Bush, and was thoroughly ticked at all of them, and not once did I ever think that it was time for an armed revolution. I could spend way too much time here enumerating the causes of my disgust. Bottom line, you win some, you lose some, the pendulum swings one way and then the other. The current folks in DC and elsewhere were elected by the majority of voters. You may not be happy with it, I may not be happy with it, but in a democracy, the majority rules. Well, except for the 2nd Bush re-election, when the Supreme Court named him president.

Until the last 6 years I'd agree with you Beany. Obama has brought about a qualitative difference to the level of vitriol in our politics that will far outlast his terms of office. He has never tried to work across the aisle, not since day one. But most damaging has been his choice to simply NOT enforce law that he disagrees with. That is a very dangerous precedent and I think we can agree on at least that much. I do not favor armed insurrection at this point but I can tell you that it isn't so far away. Here in fly over country all it will take is a sustained effort to take the guns away. When THAT day comes it will signal the true end of our freedoms. I don't know if enough will stand and fight to make a difference long term but I do know that it will be a cause worth giving everything for.
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

I think some Texans are still just a little bit upset about Fed. Gov't agencies conducting raids at Secessionist meetings and taking down names, fingerprinting members, and confiscating personal property within the past few months.

And I'm happy the feds are doing their job. I don't think any group should have the power to override the will of the people as expressed in the political process, especially through violent actions. Does anyone really want to give power to people whom we know nothing about, put the future of our country in the hands of strangers and trust they'll act fairly, judiciously and honorably. Do we get to chose them or are they just going to seize power? If anyone thinks this would turn out any better than the arab spring, if anyone thinks it would make our country stronger, there are some serious problems being overlooked. Sheesh, why do so many people think violence a reasonable act? Because it will come to that. I have no doubt thoses seccesionsts are armed to the teeth.ui certainly hope their weapons are being confiscated, they are dangerous people who want me to believe they're patriotic heros who have only my best interests at heart when all the really want to do is carry out an agenda that best serves themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormalcy

You can't talk about fears the government is going to take over and whatever else so you need your guns to protect yourself, then when it's pointed out a civilian wouldn't stand a chance, you say that isn't true because the officers and soldiers are patriotic, civic-minded Americans. So the people you're worried about busting your door down are also going to drop their guns and join you - I guess time will split in two also, to allow this to happen?

The bottom line in the Texas charade is that it is a complete and total political stunt. Why? Because the governors do not ultimately control the National Guard anymore either, and haven't for a good amount of time. It used to be the National Guard were military but under the control of the state - that is still the nominal case but ALL military is under the control of the Dept. of Defense and such, by a law passed ... can't recall, few years back, maybe longer. So even if the "monitoring" resulted in "Holy crap, the army all have Obama insignias and they're going house to house arresting people and are building a wall around Texas!", there's nothing Texas could order the National Guard to do, because it isn't under the command of the state of Texas - it is a federal entity and answers the same as the rest of the US military.

Read my lips, no New Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

You can't talk about fears the government is going to take over and whatever else so you need your guns to protect yourself, then when it's pointed out a civilian wouldn't stand a chance, you say that isn't true because the officers and soldiers are patriotic, civic-minded Americans. So the people you're worried about busting your door down are also going to drop their guns and join you - I guess time will split in two also, to allow this to happen?

The bottom line in the Texas charade is that it is a complete and total political stunt. Why? Because the governors do not ultimately control the National Guard anymore either, and haven't for a good amount of time. It used to be the National Guard were military but under the control of the state - that is still the nominal case but ALL military is under the control of the Dept. of Defense and such, by a law passed ... can't recall, few years back, maybe longer. So even if the "monitoring" resulted in "Holy crap, the army all have Obama insignias and they're going house to house arresting people and are building a wall around Texas!", there's nothing Texas could order the National Guard to do, because it isn't under the command of the state of Texas - it is a federal entity and answers the same as the rest of the US military.

Read my lips, no New Texas.

Only some of the military would join the people. Some will blindly follow orders. That's why 0bama sent out the survey to see who would and wouldnt fire on Americans if ordered. That question alone should have been considered treason, and he should have been thrown outta office.

I suspect that's also why he has purged a great many military leaders.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bama13

Are you guys Serious....the Texan State Guard against the U.S Navy Seals and Green Berets would only have one outcome, no more T.S.G's.

In 1776 it was the colonists against the most powerful empire in the world. Guess who won? who'ed of thunk it?

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

Until the last 6 years I'd agree with you Beany. Obama has brought about a qualitative difference to the level of vitriol in our politics that will far outlast his terms of office. He has never tried to work across the aisle, not since day one. But most damaging has been his choice to simply NOT enforce law that he disagrees with. That is a very dangerous precedent and I think we can agree on at least that much. I do not favor armed insurrection at this point but I can tell you that it isn't so far away. Here in fly over country all it will take is a sustained effort to take the guns away. When THAT day comes it will signal the true end of our freedoms. I don't know if enough will stand and fight to make a difference long term but I do know that it will be a cause worth giving everything for.

I have a different perspective. The vitriol displayed by some segments of the Republican party started even before the election, and were joined by those who feared or opposed Obama because of his color. And there has been no determined effort by the Feds to take away people's guns. There has been an effort to control the flow of military-grade weapons, which I support, as do most law enforcement agencies, but not to take away the kinds of weapons found in most households.If Obama is replaced by another Democrat, the vitriol isn't going to diminish one whit, not even an iota.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

In 1776 it was the colonists against the most powerful empire in the world. Guess who won? who'ed of thunk it?

I knew this one would come up. I can't see any so called "secessionist" being the caliber of Jefferson, Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Paul Revere, or any other patriots of the time. These men were educated, sophisticated, well-traveled, and successful business owners, leaders in their communities, many of them ex-military,who had the skills, experience, discipline and education to get the job done. Sorry, unless someone can provide evidence that these secessionists are of the same caliber, I'm not changing my mind. Do you know these people? Do you know who they are? Do you know their history, their skills, their education, whether they have a criminal history. Yet some people are still willing to put their faith in them when they have yet to demonstrate that faith is justified?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bama13

I knew this one would come up. I can't see any so called "secessionist" being the caliber of Jefferson, Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Paul Revere, or any other patriots of the time. These men were educated, sophisticated, well-traveled, and successful business owners, leaders in their communities, many of them ex-military,who had the skills, experience, discipline and education to get the job done. Sorry, unless someone can provide evidence that these secessionists are of the same caliber, I'm not changing my mind. Do you know these people? Do you know who they are? Do you know their history, their skills, their education, whether they have a criminal history. Yet some people are still willing to put their faith in them when they have yet to demonstrate that faith is justified?

My post was in response to another post saying that we, the people, would not have any chance in an armed rebellion against our government. That is all it was.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KariW

I don't think any group should have the power to override the will of the people as expressed in the political process, especially through violent actions

Neither do I - I agree with you there! :) I do have a problem with Fed. Agencies that don't abide by the constitutional rights of it's citizens, and act like a bunch of Nazi's. I don't understand why some people feel a need to try to control a group of peaceful people seeking Freedom from Tyranny? Why? Let them go in peace, if that is their will. We have all seen how well Governments that don't respect the rights of its citizens, fail in the end - because there is something noble in the human spirit that seeks out Freedom ( an unalienable Human Right, IMO) from oppression at all costs.

. Does anyone really want to give power to people whom we know nothing about, put the future of our country in the hands of strangers and trust they'll act fairly, judiciously and honorably. Do we get to chose them or are they just going to seize power?

IMO, If Texas were to secede, it should be done peacefully through a democratic vote that insures the Constitutional Rights of Texans are upheld as laid out in the BIll of Rights of the Texas Constitution! I would also expect them to democratically elect their own president. As per Article I Sec. 2.

"The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."

If anyone thinks this would turn out any better than the arab spring, if anyone thinks it would make our country stronger, there are some serious problems being overlooked. Sheesh, why do so many people think violence a reasonable act? Because it will come to that.

If the secession of any state becomes violent, who is ultimately to blame? If the Fed. Gov't lets the State secede peacefully and democratically - no problem. But if the Fed. Gov't tries to stop it through a show of force, or by violating the constitutional Rights of its citizens...then IMO, the Fed. Gov't is responsible. If Poland and other European Republics, can secede from the USSR, why can't Texas and other states secede from the US, if that is the will of the people in each state?

I have no doubt thoses seccesionsts are armed to the teeth.ui certainly hope their weapons are being confiscated, they are dangerous people who want me to believe they're patriotic heros who have only my best interests at heart when all the really want to do is carry out an agenda that best serves themselves.

What is wrong with a group of people, in this case, Texans (and possibly other states). who seek Freedom and Liberty from an oppressive Fed. Gov't, from forming their own country, as long as they do it "peacefully and democratically" as outlined in their state constitutions - who has the right to deny them their freedom, and constitutional rights? Just my opinion. :)

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mantis914

I have a different perspective. The vitriol displayed by some segments of the Republican party started even before the election, and were joined by those who feared or opposed Obama because of his color. And there has been no determined effort by the Feds to take away people's guns. There has been an effort to control the flow of military-grade weapons, which I support, as do most law enforcement agencies, but not to take away the kinds of weapons found in most households.If Obama is replaced by another Democrat, the vitriol isn't going to diminish one whit, not even an iota.

Meanwhile, the alphabet soup organizations are arming themselves to the teeth with millions of rounds of hollow point bullets. Can you tell me why IRS agents need to be armed? Do you support that?

Also, if you say that it is about color and not about continual failed policies, the argument is a lost cause...

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

I knew this one would come up. I can't see any so called "secessionist" being the caliber of Jefferson, Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Paul Revere, or any other patriots of the time. These men were educated, sophisticated, well-traveled, and successful business owners, leaders in their communities, many of them ex-military,who had the skills, experience, discipline and education to get the job done. Sorry, unless someone can provide evidence that these secessionists are of the same caliber, I'm not changing my mind. Do you know these people? Do you know who they are? Do you know their history, their skills, their education, whether they have a criminal history. Yet some people are still willing to put their faith in them when they have yet to demonstrate that faith is justified?

Homeland security considers returning Vets as public/government enemy #1. I didn't know it would come up. But im glad it did.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KariW

I knew this one would come up. I can't see any so called "secessionist" being the caliber of Jefferson, Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Paul Revere, or any other patriots of the time.

These men were educated, sophisticated, well-traveled, and successful business owners, leaders in their communities, many of them ex-military,who had the skills, experience, discipline and education to get the job done. Sorry, unless someone can provide evidence that these secessionists are of the same caliber, I'm not changing my mind. Do you know these people? Do you know who they are? Do you know their history, their skills, their education, whether they have a criminal history. Yet some people are still willing to put their faith in them when they have yet to demonstrate that faith is justified?

I find it interesting to note that some of the "Patriots" who gave their all and died during the Revolutionary War, were simple uneducated farmers just trying to survive under a repressive form of Gov't. Personally, I think I owe those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for freedom, the same honor and respect that I would give our so called "sophisticated" Founding Fathers. After all, some of those who died during the Revolutionary War were my ancestors who overcame tremendous odds and adversity just trying to survive. They weren't educated, sophisticated, well-traveled, and successful business owners - common people for sure, but they were still men of the highest caliber in my eyes because they fought for liberty. I guess it comes down to where your values lies..... I could care less how "successful" or well traveled they are, or even if they are well-educated. These things have never impressed me...... For me Honesty and a love of Liberty are high on my list of values.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spud the mackem

Spud I can tell you that once THIS kind of conflict got going, Texas would NOT stand alone. And a lot of those very SEALS and GB's would be FROM Texas. No, it'd be best if the folks in DC got their heads out of their arses and started to act like the servants they were intended to be, not the TYRANTS they have become.

Ok but the Seals and Green Berets are under orders which they cannot refuse , so I'll send 2 of our S.A.S guys over to help to sort out the problem ...problem solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bama13

Ok but the Seals and Green Berets are under orders which they cannot refuse , so I'll send 2 of our S.A.S guys over to help to sort out the problem ...problem solved.

Of course they could refuse orders. They aren't robots.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

, so I'll send 2 of our S.A.S guys over to help to sort out the problem ...problem solved.

just 1 is enough, send Jonny English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

In 1776 it was the colonists against the most powerful empire in the world. Guess who won? who'ed of thunk it?

A win by default doesn't mean you actually won. It means you weren't worth the price of a victory.

The U.S. government isn't going to have the disadvantages that the British government did. The troops are here, not an ocean away. The weapons aren't just better, they are superior. The personnel are trained on the exact same land, using tactics from all around the world, with the emphasis on flexibility and dominance of the battlefield. War is nothing at all like it used to be centuries ago. A civilian resistance would have no chance against a modern military.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

My post was in response to another post saying that we, the people, would not have any chance in an armed rebellion against our government. That is all it was.

I'm part of we the people, and I would be a raving madwoman if anyone started an armed rebellion that would take away my rights. I'm all for the United State of America, e plurabus unum, you know. Sorry if I misunderstood you, Bama13.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

What is wrong with a group of people, in this case, Texans (and possibly other states). who seek Freedom and Liberty from an oppressive Fed. Gov't, from forming their own country, as long as they do it "peacefully and democratically" as outlined in their state constitutions - who has the right to deny them their freedom, and constitutional rights? Just my opinion. :)

I've been pointing out what's wrong with it. We don't know who's in charge, we don't know what plans, if any, they have, we don't know the possible economic and security risks, and if they pick up weapons, which is highly likely, there will be a substantial loss of life. We don't know what governmental structures would be put in place, if or how they would conduct foreign affairs, what their foreign policies might be, nor do we know if & when an election process might be, we don't know whether they might constitute a threat to the new border, whether the new republic would be more vulnerable to the drug cartels already encroaching on their border, who would guard that border and how, thus increasing the threat to the rest of the country. Remember, no more federal money to pay for law enforcement personnel & expenses, roads, education, no assists from Homeland Security, TSA, the FBI, no more FAFSA student loans or federal grants, no more tax collections or refunds. Oh, here's something I've been wondering. How many of these secessionists are people of color or women? Is the new republic going to issue its own visas and passports? What countries in the world would want to conduct business there, because it would certainly be an unstable government for a while. Just let them go? Only if it poses absolutely no threat to the the United States. So much for the hallowed pledge of allegiance, huh? Or should that be hollowed pledge of allegiance. Apparently it's not worth a warm bucket of spit to some people.

Edited by Beany
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

of course you do not know, but if state of texas wants to leave the union, they wont ask anyone's opinion, but people of texas.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bama13

A win by default doesn't mean you actually won. It means you weren't worth the price of a victory.

The U.S. government isn't going to have the disadvantages that the British government did. The troops are here, not an ocean away. The weapons aren't just better, they are superior. The personnel are trained on the exact same land, using tactics from all around the world, with the emphasis on flexibility and dominance of the battlefield. War is nothing at all like it used to be centuries ago. A civilian resistance would have no chance against a modern military.

The colonists rebelled to achieve independence from England. They achieved independence. If you achieve your goals I call that a win. A win by default is still a win. A win means you won.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.