Terrorism at Fort Hood

NEDERLAND, Texas – The Texas Nationalist Movement has expressed praise for the valiant Texas police woman whose bravery stopped the terrorist attack at Fort Hood Thursday, and re-affirmed that the organization stands “side by side” with the United States in the global war on Islamic extremism.

“Texas is known for the valor of its people, and on Thursday, officer Kim Munley added her name to the list of Texans who have faced evil and persevered,” Texas Nationalist Movement president Daniel Miller said. “Her courage and decisiveness in a tragic and confusing situation should be a shining example for all of us.” Miller expressed his organization’s condolences to those killed and wounded by the traitor/terrorist.

“We join our American brothers and sisters in mourning the loss of these fine soldiers and civilian personnel,” Miller said. “We pray for the swift recovery of those injured.

“Although our organization is dedicated to the peaceful separation of Texas from a United States government which has abandoned the Constitution, we will always stand side by side with our brothers and sisters in this war against the terror of radical Islamic fundamentalism,” Miller added. “Terrorism is an act of cowardice, and terrorism shall never deter Texas nor, we hope, the United States, from our roles as the defenders of Western civilization and culture.”

Daniel Miller is right on target, can you imagine how humiliating it must be for this Moslem terrorist to have been taken down by a woman? This Texas woman is no ordinary woman to me but is closer to a modern day Joan of Arc than anything else. She had been shot several time and the only thing she thought about was taking down this animal who was killing innocent people. I hope President Obama gives her the highest award that can be given a civilian. The Main stream "politically correct" Media still refuses to call this carnage terrorism. I bet you if it had been a Conservative Christian who had committed this act they would have branded it a terrorist act, on that you can be sure. But the FBI...why would they label Timothy Mcveigh a terrorist and NOT this SOB? All the more reeason for Texas to get out of the United States and become a Republic once again, at least Texans know terrorism when they see it and when they see terrorism they call it terrorism!

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!.

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!