Tea Parties, Texas Nationalists may Join Forces

Some organizers of the Tea Party movement, dissatisfied with what they call the "hijacking" of many of their events by politicians with the Republican Party, have opened discussions with the Texas Nationalist Movement to possibly join forces for events in the future.

"Too many Republican politicians are getting in on the Tea Parties, and this movement was not intended to be a platform for them," said one Texas-based Tea Party event organizer, who asked tat he not be identified prior to an agreement. "We need to find candidates to run against all the incumbents of both parties and restore our government, and we're on the same page with the Texas Nationalist Movement in that regard."

Texas Nationalist Movement President Daniel Miller said he had not yet seen full details of the proposed partnership, but said the TNM and Tea Party movements share a number of common goals and his organization would be open to holding some joint events.

"The main thing for us is, we need to take back our government, and we can start by taking back our state," the Tea Party representative said. "People all over the country are watching what is going on in Texas, what Texas will do. If Texas is the only state we can take back, then let's do that and let's become our own country again."

Miller said his organization has no immediate plans for any statewide events at the moment, but "that can always change if Washington does something that needs to be addressed."

Daniel Miller is a very capable man and he has the plan to make Texas free. The Texas Nationalist Movement is in need of allies and holding joint activities with others with common interests would be beneficial. One thing the TNM needs to do is squelch those overly vociferous members who make statements that can be construed as wacky or too extreme they only scare people off. If they have certain opinions then they need to exercise self control for the sake of the movement but I'm pretty certain that Daniel is on top of this issue already.

SNP will let English keep military bases

AN INDEPENDENT Scotland would allow English military forces to be based north of the border after a UK split, says the Scottish National Party's defense spokesman.

Angus Robertson MP will tell the party conference in Inverness that the two newly separated nations would remain "friends and allies", so it would be "perfectly possible" to "share basing, procurement and training facilities with the rest of the present UK", even after Scotland had become a sovereign state.

The proposals appear to suggest that RAF bases, such as those at Leuchars and Lossiemouth, could be shared between Scottish and English fighter jets. It also opens up the idea of Scottish-based garrisons, such as Redford Barracks in Edinburgh and Fort George in Inverness, containing soldiers from both nations' armies. It may also mean that 45 Commando Royal Marines may be retained at its Arbroath base.

However, Robertson also says that an independent Scotland would reserve the right to "stand aside" from wars to which it was opposed. In recent years, the SNP has refused to support the war in Iraq and the Nato invasion of Kosovo.

He also asserts that an independent Scotland would have the right to remove Trident submarines from Scottish waters.

The plans were described as "complete fantasy" last night by Labour, which said the British government would have little desire to invest in a post-independent Scotland. The Conservatives claimed Robertson's plans had exposed how an independent Scotland would be entirely dependent on English co-operation for survival.

Meanwhile, military experts warned that Scotland would end up having to pay the former UK government to keep its facilities in Scotland.

But the SNP argues that its sharing plan showed that the "supposed disbenefits" of independence for the nation's defense was a "chimera".

Writing in today's paper in advance of giving The Scotland on Sunday Lecture at the SNP conference, Robertson argues: "On the basis of mutual interest, it is perfectly possible to envisage circumstances in which we share basing, procurement and training facilities with the rest of the present UK – our foremost friend and ally under all constitutional arrangements – in exactly the same way as defense co-operation exists across the Scandinavian nations."

Robertson is calling for a specific Scottish Defense Review, to go alongside the British Defense Review, to ensure that the country's defense policy "reflects Scotland's priorities and preferences". The SNP argues that a review would probably conclude that most Scots were opposed to the UK defence policy, including its policy of keeping Trident on the Clyde.

Robertson says that independence would ensure that Scotland would be able "to choose which theatres to be involved in".

Independence would also allow an SNP-led government to remove Trident from Scotland, he continues. "No independent nation of five million has nuclear weapons, and nor should we," he declares.

The SNP's plans for defense come as the party prepares to head to Inverness on Thursday for its annual conference, where it will increase calls for an independence referendum.

In an interview yesterday, First Minister Alex Salmond said his aim for next year's general election was to gain enough MPs to hold the balance of power in what many expect to be a hung parliament.

"There's a vast overwhelming majority of people in Scotland, regardless of political preference, who rather like the idea of the Westminster parliament being hung by a Scottish rope," he said.

Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy last night unveiled Labour's election campaign theme, which will claim that a vote for the SNP helps to install the Conservatives at Westminster. He said: "Labour's campaign – Vote SNP, Get Tory – will put this issue centre stage between now and the general election."

As for Robertson's proposals, military experts said last night that, while it would be feasible to imagine a sharing arrangement post-independence, there would be complications as well.

Colonel Bob Stewart, the former United Nations commander in Bosnia, said: "There would have to be a State of Forces Agreement such as there is between the UK and Germany (where British troops are currently garrisoned). In theory, it is possible for this to happen, but there are complications. Would Scotland be part of Nato, for example?"

He added: "It would all come down to money. If you wanted to keep English troops and bases here, how much would you be prepared to pay? The Germans don't want us to withdraw because British troops there substantially subsidise the local economy."

However, shadow Secretary of State for Scotland David Mundell said: "An independent Scotland would have to rely on England's goodwill on defense and security."

He added: "Alex Salmond can't expect to break up Britain and have the rest of the United Kingdom dance to his tune. His defence policy doesn't stack up. It is fooling nobody and would threaten tens of thousands of jobs in Scotland. Alex Salmond needs to get on with his job in the Scottish Parliament, because he just can't cut it on the wider stage."

Meanwhile, a senior Scotland Office official described the proposals as "complete fantasy", claiming that after independence the government south of the border would have no incentive to invest or be sited in a foreign country such as Scotland.

The source said: "Shipbuilding on the Clyde would go – the Royal Navy would not give contracts to a foreign country. This would be another hammer blow to Glasgow from the nationalists. In all, 20,000 defence-related jobs would be at risk. In Morayshire, 2,000 jobs would go – no Trident, no Nimrod, no Kinloss."

As for the plans to scrap Trident, the source added: "In a world in which rogue nations are seeking nuclear weapons, it is madness for the SNP to suggest that Scotland should be defenceless. The majority of Scots have consistently rejected the policies of pacifism and one-sided disarmament set out by Angus Robertson."

So what does this article have to do with Texas? A lot really, by observing the complicated process that other fledgling nations face as they secede we can see what Texas has to face when she leaves the United States. It is of course much easier to join a union than it is to leave one. It is the duty of every Texas Nationalist especially those in leadership watch very closely what other break-away republics do and to note well how they accomplish their goal. Whether Texas would allow the United States to retain bases on Texas soil would be up to the ploiticians but as far as self defense I believe that Texas would be able to hold its own better than most countries and federal troops would not be needed to protect our homeland. God Bless Texas!.

Economy, War, Anger Fuel US Secession

WASHINGTON CITY – Disgruntled by high taxes, wars in far-away countries, bailouts for fat-cat bankers, a growing number of Americans are pushing their states to defy federal laws and some are advocating secession.

"Our government is operated and owned by Wall Street and corporate America,” Thomas Naylor, a retired economics professor who heads the Second Vermont Republic movement, told Agence France-Presse (AFP) on Sunday, October 11.

"The empire is going down -- do you want to go down with the Titanic, or seek other options while they are still on the table?"

The US fell into the grip of the worst economic crisis since 1930s in September after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the fourth-largest investment bank, and the financial woes of a number of Wall Street giants.

The fallout has developed into a full-fledged recession, threatening personal finances as home prices fall, retirement funds shrink and access to credit and jobs evaporate.

The recession, government growth and the explosion in federal spending are infuriating many Americans.

"The US government has lost its moral authority," says Naylor.

Twenty-five states have passed laws preventing the 2005 Real ID Act, which sets federal standards for identification cards, from being implemented.

Also, 13 states have legalized marijuana for medical use, in defiance of federal anti-drug regulations.

As tensions grow over health care reform, 15 states are pushing laws that would exempt them from federal health care regulations.

Montana and Tennessee have even passed laws exempting weapons and ammunition produced in their states from federal regulations.

Secession
"[Secessionists are] a minority voice whose time has come because of one thing: technology," Labbe insists.
Some argue that secession is the cure for America’s problem.
"There is more talk today about nullification (invalidating federal laws) and secession... than any time since 1865," said Kirkpatrick Sale, who heads the South Carolina-based Middlebury Institute, which studies separatism, secession, and self-determination.

Sale says there are active secessionist groups in at least 10 US states, including Vermont, Hawaii, Alaska, Texas, and the US commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

"Secession is our only answer because our federal government is broken and cannot be repaired in the current political system," agrees Dave Mundy, a spokesman for the Texas Nationalist Movement.

The US is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district.

It was founded on July 4, 1776, by thirteen British colonies that defeated Great Britain in the American Revolutionary War.

But Texas was an independent republic from 1836 to 1845, as was Vermont from 1777 to 1791.

Texas last seceded in 1861, when it joined 10 other southern states to form the Confederate States of America.

The Civil War soon broke out, and four years later, the union was restored.

J.R. Labbe, editorial director at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram newspaper, doubts secessionists can gain grounds.

"[They are] a minority voice whose time has come because of one thing: technology," she told AFP.

"Digital cameras that can upload images and soundbites -- and 24/7 news channels that are always looking for the most bizarre clip they can find -- have given them a much broader audience than they, or Texas, deserve."

Lyn Spillman, a specialist on nationalism at Notre Dame University, agrees.

"Considered generally, secession movements -- which are quite common in American history -- are extremely unlikely to have significant political consequences."

But Sale contends that a collapse of the dollar and anger over foreign wars, combined with calamitous climate change triggered by global warming, could push communities towards energy, water and food independence.

"A conjunction of events over the next few years might increase the talk about secession."

Who's to say whether an idea deserves or doesn't deserve a broader audience? Only the people do and not some armchair political analyser. To say that Texas doesn't deserve the media exposure that the Texas Nationalists are receiving is wrong. What the world is seeing is a seedling which is beginning to sprout and grow. So Texas Nationalism is extremely unlikely to have any political consequence? That remains to be doesn't it? Even those Texans who are not secessionists are enchanted with the idea of a Texas Republic and once they begin to realize that Texas and her citizens would be better off as a separate naion then they will do what is necessary....go to the polls and vote for independence.

The Right of Secession

The Inalienable Right of Secession
by Clifford F. Thies

The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America invokes the self-evident truths that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that governments are formed to protect these rights and gain their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that when a government becomes abusive of these rights, it is the right — no, it is the duty — of the people to alter or abolish that government. To say governments were formed to protect the rights of men would be historically incorrect. Almost all governments were formed by ruthless men exerting their will over others through the use of force.

Some governments, over time, evolved toward the rule of law, perhaps only because their rulers saw that this would sanction their own continued enjoyment of the wealth that they possessed. In some instances, this evolution involved one or more "revolutions" in which those who were governed were able to better establish the rule of law.The language of the Declaration should not be construed as an argument about the historical origins of government but, rather, as what would be true and just to an enlightened person, namely, that as persons and as communities of persons, we have the right and the duty to alter or abolish governments that become abusive of our rights.

As Benjamin Franklin once put it, "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."The concept of an inalienable right of secession was not original to the American Revolution. It can be traced to the scholastics, to Reformation politics, and to the most ancient Greek and Hebrew writings. Without going into a dissertation on the subject, let me simply point to the flag of the state of Virginia, which was designed by Thomas Jefferson. It depicts a female warrior (Athena) standing atop a slain tyrant (Zeus). According to legend, Zeus, the greatest and most terrible of the gods, was supposed to be the god of law, yet he was himself lawless. When he heard that he would sire a child who would destroy him, he swallowed his wife whole to prevent it. But the child grew within him and then burst from him fully grown.

This child was Athena, the goddess of victory, liberty, and peace. And, she did indeed slay her father. It should be easy to see, in this legend, how the rule of law might be established from a government formed through the use of force.Now, does a massive increase in taxes, in spending, and in the federal deficit constitute such an abuse of the rights of men as to justify secession under the doctrine of an inherent right to secede? I don't think so. Ask me about the inherent right to secede when the government starts to restrict our freedom of speech, to shut down the independent media, to confiscate our guns, and to take away our children.

The International Law of Secession

The international law of secession is in the process of emerging at this very time. The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights indicates that all people have the right to a country. A corollary of this is that no people should long be kept in nationless status, e.g., the Palestinians. A further corollary of this is that no people should long be kept in any subjugated status, such as by being citizens or subjects of a country from which they are alienated.Now, as a practical matter, consideration has to be given to whether an identifiable people exist in an identifiable place. At least, this is the current thinking. But, if these several elements come together: an identifiable people in an identifiable place that grouse under the subjugation of the larger nation, there is a growing consensus that this people and place can be severed from the larger nation, even by rebellion and with support from outside the larger nation.

East Timor, Eritrea, and the devolutions of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia (including the ongoing situation in Kosovo) illustrate the development of the international law of secession.Turning to the United States, it is now well established that the country consists of so many "red" (Republican) and "blue" (Democrat) states, along with a few "purple" (battleground) states. Even in a so-called landslide, like 2008, only a few states "flip" from Republican to Democrat, and these states go from close Republican to close Democrat. Furthermore, the whole purpose of elections has become to decide whether Democrats get to raise taxes on Republicans while adjusting the Alternative Minimum Tax so as to minimize the impact on themselves, and whether Democrats get to force acceptance of gay marriage onto Republicans or whether Republicans get to force unwanted pregnancies onto Democrats. In other words, there no longer is any pretense of federalism in which domestic policy is left to the states of the Union.

Under these conditions, it can be argued that, were either party to fall into permanent minority status, and the other party to establish hegemonic control over the so-called federal government, the people in the other party could be said to be an alienated, identifiable people in an identifiable place, and could assert a right to secede under emerging international law.The argument for secession under emerging international law might be strongest for Alaska. Geographically, the place is disjoint from the other states of the Union, making it an identifiable place. Furthermore, under their state constitution's explicit right of privacy, possession of small amounts of marijuana is a right; yet, the so-called federal government imposes the costs of its war on drugs onto the citizens of Alaska.

Furthermore, the people of Alaska have been long frustrated in developing their natural resources because of the opposition by majorities in the "lower 48." Indeed, as a separate nation, Alaska might be the freest place in the world, with zero taxes because of its wealth in natural resources, well-established civil liberties, and a socially tolerant, live-and-let-live attitude among its people.

Following Alaska, states such as Florida and Texas would have the next best arguments for secession under international law, since they are themselves on a seacoast and their secession would not much disrupt the road, transmission wire, pipeline or other infrastructure networks of the other states.States such as Utah and Kentucky, being landlocked "enclaves," would have a relatively weak argument. On the other hand, it would be relatively easy for these states to join with other states that have already seceded or are in the process of seceding, and form a patchwork of independent republics that develop compacts to facilitate interstate travel, commerce, water flow, transmission of electricity, and so forth.

"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."

Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase speaking for the U.S. Supreme Court in White v. TexasUS Law of SecessionThe US law of secession is thought to have been decided by the US Supreme Court in White v. Texas, following the Civil War. The actual matter to be decided was relatively insignificant. The Court used the occasion to issue a very broad decision. Chief Justice Chase, speaking for the Court, said, The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.Notice that the second sentence appears to totally contradict the first sentence.

The first sentence I just quoted invokes words such as "perpetual," and in so doing may create the impression that the Supreme Court decreed that no state could ever secede from the Union. But, on careful reading, the relationship between Texas and the other states of the Union is merely "as indissoluble as the union between the original States." In other words, Texas, having been a nonoriginal state, has no greater right of secession than do the original states.

As to how states might secede, the second sentence says, "through revolution or through consent of the States. "As to why a state might secede, either through revolution or through consent, Chief Justice Chase presciently discusses the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution, which reserve to the states and to the people thereof all powers not expressly granted to the federal government, and that the design of the Union, implicit in the very name "United States," is the preservation of the states as well as of the Union: the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government.

The so-called United States of America ceases to exist when the political majority of the country attempts to rule the entire country as a nation instead of as a federal government. In such a circumstance, the "indestructible union of indestructible states" of which the Court speaks is already dissolved.

As to whether "Texas" continued as a state and, furthermore, as a state of the United States during the period of rebellion, the Court made clear that it continued as both although certain rights that normally accrue to states of the United States fell into suspension. Presumably, if Texas had seceded "with the consent of the States," Texas would have been able to free itself from the Union described as the "United States," and could have considered joining into another Union described as the "Confederate States."

Also presumably, if the Confederate States of America had been able to impose their will onto the other states of the United States through force or had been able to induce the other states to consent, Texas and the other states of the Confederate States could have seceded from one Union and joined into another. But, the outcomes of wars are problematic.

How Do "the States" Consent to Secession?

The wide-ranging discussion of the Court in White v. Texas contains a lot of intriguing and obtuse comments. How, for example, do "the States" give consent to the secession of a state? The Constitution, as the Court says, does not envision such a thing, and does not provide a process. What if the legislatures of "the States" sent delegates to a convention that drafted a constitution for a more perfect union, which would take effect for those states that ratified it, providing that at least a two-thirds majority of them did so? For those who were not homeschooled, it may be necessary to point out that this was the process through which the Constitution of 1789 was created and through which eleven states seceded from the union provided by the Articles of Confederation, leaving Rhode Island and North Carolina as the only two states in that prior union. (Those two states eventually also seceded from the prior union, thereupon making it a nullity, and joined into the new union.)

While the Constitution of 1789 required the secession of 9 out of 13 states, does this mean that a supermajority of the states would be necessary for consent? It seems to me that a supermajority would not be necessary, but only a simple majority, for a US version of what is called the "Velvet Revolution" in the former Czechoslovakia, now the Czech and Slovak Republics. In that country, dissolution involved nothing more earth shattering than a bunch of accountants who scurried about the country, totting up the value of the assets of the national government that would fall into the possession of each succeeding government so as to determine how to fairly apportion the national debt to the succeeding governments.

Of course, in that case, both succeeding governments transitioned to membership in the European Union, guaranteeing the free flow of goods, labor and capital between them and the other members of the E.U., as well as guaranteeing certain civil liberties and democratic processes to the persons in each of the succeeding republics.Looking at the electoral maps of the United States of recent presidential elections, it appears that the potentially disaffected red states of a socially liberal, economically socialist blue nation constitute a nearly compact, self-contained block from the southeast coast to the Rocky Mountain west, plus Alaska. Indiana and Ohio appear as two purple states jutting into an otherwise blue Great Lakes region.

New Hampshire is a purple state in a deeply blue New England (but, being a coastline state, it would not matter much that it was not connected by land to other breakaway states). Contrariwise, Colorado and New Mexico are two purple or blue states in the Rocky Mountain region that might wind up as enclaves of Old America amidst the independent republics of New America.

Of course, once it becomes clear that a majority of the states — and specifically those that are the most productive — are seceding, the remaining states of Old America will have to consider their options. Would they want to bail out the corporations, the unionized public-school teachers, municipal workers, and the UAW, and the bankrupt states of California and New Jersey, among others, when the burden falls much more heavily onto them?

A state like Minnesota, with a solid work ethic, which tends to vote Democratic in presidential elections, might think it could do better with New America than with the moochers of Old America. Even Iowa, where they bury farmers only three feet deep nowadays, so they can still get their hand out, will have to weigh the pros of the ethanol subsidies they receive versus the cons of the taxes they will have to pay to subsidize everybody else. Possibly, once the rush gets underway, the only "state" that will be left in Old America will be the District of Columbia.

And the rush for secession is on. Not since 1861 has the United States seen such a wave of secession fever sweep across the land as it does today. Whether all fifty states leave the union to form their own republics I doubt would happen but two or three definately. More than likely the federal government would go through some very radical changes to discourage any other states from leaving the union. But on the other hand it is possible for the nation to split in half with socialists and conservatives forming seperate unions. That would be fine for them and they can do what they want as long as Texas is an Independant Republic I couldn't care less.

Countries Smaller Than Texas

Europe: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxemgourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, Andorra, France, Italy, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, Switzerland, Vatican City, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Macedonia, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Yugoslavia, Belarus, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Romania.

Asia: Bahrain, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuiwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Georgia, Maldives, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Kyrgystan, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam.

Oceania: New Zealand, Papua, New Guinea, Solomon Islands.

North and Central America: Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama.

The Caribbean: Bahamas, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica.

South America: Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Suriname, Uraguay.

Africa: Djibouti, Eritea, Kenya, Seychelles, Tunisia, Benin, Burkina, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo, Burundi, Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Rwanda, Uganda, Botswana, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Swaziland, Zimbabwe.

The above is for those who think Texas is too small to be an independent republic or too small to make it on her own. God Bless Texas!

Will Austin Become "Liberty Central?"

Will Texas become "Liberty Central" or "Little Washington?"
by Russell D. Longcore

The Texas Nationalist Movement is working hard to sell secession to its fellow Texans. And some state here in the not good ol’ US is eventually going to succeed at seceding. But there are a lot of very complicated issues facing any state that will have to be settled in advance.

Texas has as good a chance at secession success as any...maybe even better. They have a long tradition of independence, having fought for that independence from Mexico in 1836. But in reality, Texas was only a nation for nine years! They lost their minds in 1845 and assumed their place in American statehood. They’ve been a subservient state for 164 years. But at least they WERE a nation before becoming a state. Everyone makes mistakes. Forgive them.

So Texas could have the chance of becoming a new nation. But will Austin, the state capitol, become a beacon of liberty for the rest of the world, or simply a smaller version of Washington DC?

24.6 million people live in Texas. Let’s estimate that half are registered voters. If the Nationalists can get a referendum for secession on a state-wide ballot someday, then about 6.2 million Texans will have to vote "Yes" for secession. That’s a pretty tall order. Not impossible, but daunting.

But that’s when the work begins.

The leaders of New Texas will need a brain trust of legal minds, economists and policy strategists that can assist them as they take their first steps into a very new world. I recommend to those New Texas leaders that they put The Mises Institute on their speed dial. The Mises Institute is a liberty-promoting, free market think tank in Auburn, Alabama. The faculty and staff are the most cutting-edge thinkers on earth today.

Listed below are just 20 of the issues that Texans would have to settle in order to build a new nation.

1. A formal Declaration of Independence and Secession would have to be written and ratified, likely by the legislature and signed by the Governor. A date for presenting that document to someone like the sitting US President would have to be chosen.

2. The actual form of the new government must be chosen. Will it be a Constitutional Republic...a Parliament...what? Remember that this is a new constitution for a single nation, not a confederacy of nations. The new constitution doesn’t need to be articles of confederation, but should be more like the Virginia Constitution of 1776 or the Swiss canton system.

3. Will all the existing politicians in Texas have to stand for election in the new government? The present legislators in Austin may be infected with statism and opponents of sovereignty. I nominate Ron Paul as the first President of New Texas.

4. Monetary policy is the keystone of the new nation. All commerce, and the very existence of New Texas hangs on this one issue. But if Texas decides to adopt any monetary policy other than 100% gold dollar, it will have swallowed the poison pill of Keynesianism before its life even begins. No government in the history of mankind has devalued its money and survived. Not One.

4. Courts system – Will the new Texas begin with a clean slate, or will it adopt the corrupt American court precedents existing today? You can predict that entrenched interests in the legal system will attempt to tie up the secession in court forever. Where will Texas find judges that are pro-secession? Will Texans allow themselves to be drawn into Federal legal battles when the US should have no jurisdiction in secession?

5. What method of tax collection will the new nation choose? Any income tax will likely foment yet another revolution.

6. There are a lot of Federal lands and military bases in Texas. Will the new nation buy them from Washington or simply confiscate them? And why should the New Texas national government presume that it should own the former Federal lands and bases? Should they not be sold to private parties?

7. The new Texas will have to create an immigration policy. Not only is there the existing problem with the Texas/Mexican border, but hundreds of thousands of Americans will want to relocate to Texas to take part in the birth of the new nation.

8. Millions of Texans presently receive Social Security benefits of some sort. What will happen to their benefits after secession? Will Washington cut them off in retaliation? Will Texas assume that obligation?

9. Privatization of state services – will Texas try to set up new bureaucracies to deliver mail, collect the taxes, etc? The free market always performs better than government, and no compelling reason can be made for government service.

9. Law Enforcement is already entrenched in every niche and corner of Texas. Will the new Texas continue with the failed War on Drugs, or recognize that drugs are morally equal to alcohol and lift its prohibition?

10. What will the New Texas do about a military? Will it embrace a national militia like Switzerland, or establish Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines?

11. Foreign policy issues will involve border states and other sovereign nations. Will New Texas make the same foreign policy blunders that Washington loves to make?

12. Will New Texas assume the liability of a Medicare/Medicaid system?

13. Will New Texas protect religious liberty and eschew religious subsidy? After all, there is no practical reason that religious organizations and churches should enjoy tax-free status at the expense of the rest of the population. This issue will be decided as New Texas forms tax policy.

14. Insurance makes the world go around. New Texas will need the wisdom of Solomon in its Department of Insurance to properly regulate insurance companies.

15. Securities law must be enacted. But copying the corrupt FTC and SEC won’t work.

16. How many of the existing US Cabinet offices will find a place in the New Texas government? New Texas would probably run fine without most of the unconstitutional bureaucracies operating in Washington today. Copying Washington won’t work.

17. Texas is a microcosm of all the environmental issues facing America today. The "greenies" will fight hard to continue some of the dumb environmental laws in New Texas. They have money and they are patient.

18. New Texas will have to make an early decision on public education. Will New Texas continue the failed policies of the federal Department of Education and the deathgrip of the teacher’s unions?

19. Texas has great colleges and universities. What will happen to them when Federal money dries up? More importantly, will Texas football teams be thrown out of American football conferences and the BCS? God help us.

20. New Texas will need an intelligent Energy policy which embraces nuclear energy, oil and gas, and alternative sources. Texas must throw off the American regulations that prohibit new nuclear power plants. 100% of the electricity for New Texas should come from nuclear power.

New Texas has the real chance to become the freest place on earth. But it won’t achieve that status if it simply becomes Washington West. The reason for secession is Washington and statism. The men and women crafting a New Texas must keep their vision of liberty in our lifetimes always before them as they do their holy work.

DumpDC...Six Letters That Can Change History.

Texas can be "Liberty Central", Texas can be the leader of a new freedom in the Americas. What would it mean for the United States when Texas becomes independent again? It would mean that other states in the union would leave or that the U.S. would return to the federalism that was intended from the start and return power back to the states where it is supposed to be. Russell poses a lot of legitimate questions about Texas secession. Breaking away from an empire and going on your own is a difficult process and it would behoove the Texas Nationalist Movement to study the transition that the Eastern European states went through with the Soviet empire. But the most important thing at this stage is win the hearts of the Texas people for nothing can happen until that is done first. God Bless Texas!