Texas to monitor U.S. military, fears hostile takeover!

Post Reply New Topic

Is the U.S. acting hostile against the State of Texas or is Texas overreacting in typical Texas fashion (Yes I've been to Texas and have family that lives there)?

I guess somebody forgot to tell the governor that Texas is already part of the USA!

The Americans don't need to conquer Texas because Texas already voluntarily joined the USA back in like 1846.

Ah, Texas, home of the Creation Evidence Museum. 'Nuff said!

Here we go again......

Stereotype snarking and gross generalizations.

Even if you've "been to Texas and have family there" does that exactly equate with the ENTIRE state? Because, in case you hadn't noticed, it's the biggest one in the contiguous 48....and that means there is a lot diversity. One city in Texas is not even like the next, nor its population. There are all kinds of people across Texas, of all kinds of intellect, political affiliation, education, culture and sensibility, and they're not ALL like YOUR family or friends or city. Some of THE most educated, reasonable, wise, intelligent and thinking people I've ever had the privilege to know are from the state you people gleefully sh!t all over in your wisecracks. Some of them could run rings around your ignorance.

And I hate to give you a huge shock, but even most Texans cannot believe the stupidity of creationists....

Sorry but this kind of "EVERYONE'S THE SAME, EXACTLY THE SAME!" bull sh!t just because they all share one (enormous) state, or one color, or one race or one neurology, pisses me off.

A bunch of people on the spectrum -- a neurology that is so diverse that there is constant eye rolling RIGHT HERE about how NTs think WE are all the same -- ought to know better than to stereotype another bunch of people too.

Nice HYPOCRISY you got going on there...

Seriously, there are so many bad words I want to call you jerks right now. Ignorant, incurious, unoriginal-thinker asses doesn't even cover it.

Last edited by BirdInFlight on 29 Apr 2015, 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I live in Abilene

I guess I'll have to lay off the edgy humor from now on. Sheesh!

This reminds me of the Reagan administration's attempt to station MX (ICBM) Missiles in Utah during the 1980s. Utah Gov. Scott M. Matheson, D-Utah, welcome the military to do whatever it wanted on its land within Utah (a combined size larger than some east-coast states), but that he had refused to allow federal vehicles on state roads and highways (the only way to deliver the missiles to their sites) because most almost all Utahns at the time didn't want nuclear weapons in their backyards.

It was a clever way to remind the U.S. government that it didn't own Utah or its citizens. Texas is now doing the same thing with the U.S. military Operation Jade Helm 15 exercise in nine states throughout the southwest, and Florida and Mississippi. In this case, the state (and Utah) will be considered "hostile" areas.

Hostile to whom? Why experience or knowledge could the special-operations troops training in the American southwest gain from training within communities instead of their military bases? Why are some of the troops going to be dressed as indigenous citizens "role players" instead of uniformed for identification purposes? Why are they going to be armed with "simunitions" (blanks)?" Why are whole communities being warned ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/258609463/Jad ... Document-2 ) about "noise complaints," exercise activities occurring "...between 11:00pm and 4:00a.m.," and why is the exercise's motto "Master[ing] the Human Domain"?!?

Even if this is just a military exercise, isn't the official designation of whole states and their citizens as "hostile" arrogant, combative and insulting to the military's ultimate employers? I am reminded that the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and 7/7 occurred on the same day as U.S. and U.K. military exercises which mimicked the exact scenarios as those that ultimately played out. More importantly, how are indigenous citizens in the "hostile" states expected to know real, armed criminals from the faked variety? As citizens of the most armed states in the nation, should they act according to state laws which provide that they may draw their firearms on suspected criminals, or would that spark an even bigger event? Is just such an event happening what is expected? History tells us that it just might be so.

In any case, this is a completely stupid thing for the U.S. government to do.

Yes, and let's not forget, they tried to leave the USA back in 1861. Some of them would probably like to try again.

That actually is true. But people outside of Texas tend to exaggerate the secessionist elements here

Every state has it's archetype which perpetuated in the rest of the union and the world.

California is known for crazy liberal hippy land where they do whatever whenever.
NY is known for corruption and liberal rich people who are screwing everyone over.
MI (where I am from) is known for corruption, crime, gangs, murder rate, being ran down, and highly uneducated because you didn't need college to get a good paying factory job for most of modern history.
Granted the stereotype of MI only exists because of Detroit and Flint, yet the whole country sees it this way.
We have some of the richest cities in the country, along with the some of the poorest.
WI is known for being a farming state filled with cows and cheese.
IL is known for high political corruption and all the horribleness Chicago is known for, and for trying to sell Obama's former U.S. Senate seat.
OH is known for being ass backwards and being filled with stupid people
the whole NE of the U.S. is known for being crazy liberal socialist land that hates capitalism.
The 10 states that make up the Deep South; are known for being poor, corrupt, filled with racist rednecks.
Utah is known for being filled to the brim with Mormons
Colorado is known for pot smoking conservatives
Idaho is known for being a state that is filled with potato farmers.
Washington is known for being smart and filled with techies.
Nevada is know for loose morals, gambling, crime, mob control, prostitution.
KY is just known for horse racing
TN is known for it's crazy belief in the bible.
Etc...

Texas is known internationally for being the last bastion of conservative republicanism and conservative christian values in the U.S.

According to polls done in Texas by Fox News and others:


31% of Texans polled believe Texas has the right to secede.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... pt_to_stay
http://texnat.org here is their website for Texas nationalism.
They repeatedly get 10s of thousands of signatures on petitions sending them to Obama.

Depending on the poll, it ranges from 25% to ~50%.
The majority of Texans polled by Fox News want the bible to be law.
The majority also adhere to conservative republicanism

Texas regularly teaches the bible in nearly all of their school districts.


Texas is known as the most powerful and populous bible belt state, The most christian state, and others along side being the Lone Star state.

Here is an article from the world renown publication The Economist on why Texas is clinging to religion.
http://www.economist.com/news/books-and ... a-clinging

There is even a book by the author interviewed, for you to read regarding on how religious Texas is and why they always vote for the most religious candidate since LBJ.

http://www.chron.com/life/houston-belie ... 560935.php
Here a slightly old poll from Pew Research that shows Texas is the most religious state, being even more religious than the country as whole.

Lastly In November the Texas State School Board approved the new textbooks which are steeped in biblical history to counter the liberal bias in the existing text books.
It was approved 10-5, with the 5 Liberal Democrats opposing and forcing most the textbook publishers to withdraw from the bidding process.



The new textbooks will be in place for the start school year starting in Fall of 2015 and complies with the new biblical influenced curriculum approved in 2010.

This will affect all students in public schools in Texas. Private school are exempt.

According to American Founders Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (who became U.S. presidents) in their anonymous Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_ ... esolutions ), U.S. states, having created the U.S. government to serve them (not the other way around), have the inherent right to leave the federal union if and when they choose. Texas, especially, having been a separate and distinct republic or nation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas ) before becoming a U.S. state, sees its own independent pre-existence as an a priori assumption. Whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court would agree might rely on the inferred influence of the two "original constructionists," Jefferson and Madison. Mighty convincing, in my opinion.

Actually, Utah is only about 70 percent LDS (Mormon). But, we are deep with Osmonds!

I know, but your state has been unable to shake the Mormon identity.

Yeeeah, true. Even Arthur Conan Doyle got it wrong (he later apologized). The funny thing is most Utahns (Mormon and otherwise) appreciate the humor about us.

"Why do you never take ONE Mormon fishing? Because he will smoke all your cigarettes and drink all your beer." Hehe.

"I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances." -- Abraham Lincoln

I support his premise, but I disagree with his conclusion. I wouldn't trust constitutional interpretation to the man who suspended the writ of habeas corpus, imprisoned editors and publishers who opposed his actions in writing, and preferred sending all black Americans back to Africa than to have them linger around as free citizens.