Comments


  • Amazing!!!!! Just Amazing.

    March 1, 2010 at 7:06 p.m.

  • It seems that a wanna be politican doesn't want to answer.

    February 26, 2010 at 12:20 p.m.

  • Ex resident.

    It is not a lame smear attempt against anyone. I find the person-in-question questionable in his motives.

    Alton Easton.
    A burr in my behind? Nope. A Character flaw? Nope. You would have been a leader in the community.
    As someone with some credibly, you should have been more reasonable in your past blogs. You had said or implied that the high cost of bullets is a tool for the White House against guns. When in reality it has more to do with the production of ammo. Then you voiced concern about the homeland security report on conservatives, when there’s another report on left wing groups which you ignored.

    Just because you have the majority backing you that doesn’t make you right. Just you are a conservative, doesn’t make you right. Right makes right, not might makes right.

    Jbosch95.
    Excuses Excuses. States right this. States rights that. The southern states had a state right to do what? A state right to deny constitutional, social, and economic rights for non-whites.

    February 23, 2010 at 4:16 p.m.

  • Rotating states is an excellent idea.

    February 23, 2010 at 11:12 a.m.

  • Mike,
    How about rotating which states have the early primaries in national (presidential) elections so all the states can have opportunity to determine who the party front-runners are. I get tired of the presidential nominees being chosen before the primary votes in Texas are even counted.

    February 22, 2010 at 7:34 p.m.

  • Alton
    Not skilled; practiced over & over.

    You said “Mike many of your blogs makes me laugh.” Now, that is an old condescending trick meant to take the road of superiority…..IMO

    I have often said that being in the left of center position will leave me open to be bombarded, in this conservative forum. I welcome that but I don’t have to tolerate the topic changers or those that want to take a shot at me and not indulge in meaningful debate. Now, you are a conservative, so most of the posters agree with your position. You have a lot more leeway. It’s a lot easier being an open –minded conservative in this town, county and state.

    It should not be that interesting that I would use the term "fringe element" because that is exactly how I feel and I explained my reasoning in another post. ….Cool-aid drinker has been out there forever and often misused to mean you are different.

    I am tired of the useless arguments like getting rid of the fed, secession, nullification, 9/11, JFK, and other conspiracy theories that can be discussed on another thread.

    Thanks for coming back and explaining your position, it means a lot to me but now I know you might be testing me or as they say in the real world “jerking my chain.”

    February 22, 2010 at 2:45 p.m.

  • Dang, my spelling stinks today.

    February 22, 2010 at 2:13 p.m.

  • Interesting comment Mike, I loved your last comment to me. Your use of an old debate trick with a double negative question, to draw an opponent into a losing position is very skilled.

    I often agree with some of your blog positions, but if we are going to always agree on very position or topic without question; then the endeavor is useless.

    It has always been my contention that a civil disagreement benefits open minded parties to the disagreement, because they leave the disagreement with a better upstanding of the other persons position. Open-minded individuals often modify their position.


    I often write a blog just to watch how individuals make assumptions upon what my position is. It is often interesting like on my blog about Medina, some individuals assumed I was supporting her, just because I said maybe we should take a second look at her.

    It is interesting that you were against the cool-aid drinker comment, yet you used the term "fringe element".

    February 22, 2010 at 2:06 p.m.

  • Good answer John and I do not dispute majority of your post that puts all the blame on the federal government. Where I don't agree is that the American public is becoming more intelligent, i.e. Sunday's advocate had a poll that stated 30% of Texans believe man roamed the earth with dinosaurs. Remember shortly after the administration took office, the paranoid thought Homeland Security was coming after them, Obama was monitoring their e-mails and coming after their guns…. More access to information I agree.

    I think the state level is a good place to start using the ideas of the bipartisan National Governors Convention. Governor Rendell and Schwarzenegger offered a good idea; truth telling.

    February 22, 2010 at 12:58 p.m.

  • We have orchestrated our current fiasco, unintentionally. No one was looking, or cared to assess the damage, that allowing unconstitutional legislation, would have.

    Our founding fathers, desired to create a form of government, that would last indefinitely. They understood that if government grew to strong or weak, it would jeopardize the evolutionary process; because polarizing politicians, political parties, big business, and special interest groups, would sacrifice the integrity of the “rule of law”, to serve their own purposes.

    This ties into what I said earlier. What we have today is “hyper-political destabilization”, in theory government is both weaken and strengthen enough to maintain order; in practice, due to broad expansion in human intelligence and extreme inadequacies due to corrupt bureaucracies and polarizing legislation, this is not the case. Our current system of government is ineffective against a broader and more intelligent population. Corrupt practices are more easily identified and individuals rights are harder to suppress; in other wards “citizens and government are on a more equal footing“, and citizens want more reflection of this.

    The era of “Big Brother” is nearly over, the era of “My Brothers Partner” will soon begin.

    February 22, 2010 at 12:22 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    February 22, 2010 at 11:38 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    February 22, 2010 at 11:35 a.m.

  • John
    What does that have to do with a broken government? You (I think)are going back to the nation's founding but what does that have to do with what is happening today?

    February 22, 2010 at 11:34 a.m.

  • The Constitutional framers understood the “long-term” necessity, of empowering all rights through a ”supreme documentation of authority”, than a “supreme individual or body of authority”; that creates respect for compliance, instead of fear of noncompliance, with the “rule of law“. People’s fear and hatred towards violence, does not diminish it’s possibility and effects in conflict. Our founding fathers knew, that the only protection against violent revolution, was both sensible governance and politics.

    “Extremist in government” have supported legislation, that betrays our constitution. This can be seen in the blurring of powers by all branches and creation of bureaucratic authorities, that act in place of elected authority. Through the malicious interpretive manipulation of powers, that make them appear less effective in order to create deceptive justification allowing for greater powers that abridge our constitutional rights to serve their own greed and ambitions. This is susceptive, but equally valid as to why, government appears to always fail; only to request greater powers that are more intrusive, to get it right but still continue on a course of inadequacy.

    There is a pattern, except you have to look at the whole body of work.

    February 22, 2010 at 11:28 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    February 22, 2010 at 11:26 a.m.

  • Alton
    I do have control over that delete button and it comes in handy...I still remember a true comment Zorro made last month, when he said I seem to attract the small minded kool-aid drinkers..I am trying to eliminate that.

    Free speech is to keep the federal government from denying you free speech rights, such as the freedom to assemble or petition the government…. The Victoria Advocate has rules in place to keep people on topic, civil, and truthful; occasionally they have to enforce their rules by deleting a post that violates those rules but that does not violate any free speech. In the future, run your own blog the way you want and let me worry how I control the content of a blog I write. You do have that option of bypass, ignore, or skip; it’s not like I am seeking your opinion.

    Many of the visitors to this website wonder? Are you a spokesman for the visitors or do you think your thoughts has to be the thoughts of others?

    February 22, 2010 at 11:16 a.m.

  • Jbosch95 said “Little touchy aren’t you Mike? It is interesting and quite reveling, how you will label someone as “the fringe element” who simple believes that the government (both Federal and State) should honor the constitution.”

    A little touchy puts it mildly; you proved my point by allowing someone to change the subject to their obsession, lead all to the responses being off topic.. I invite a difference of opinion, in a civil manner, because I would have to be on automatic delete if I didn’t. Write your own blog.

    In my opinion (I am entitled) the fringe element are the conspiracy theorist such as Birthers, Truthers, Tenthers and Secessionists but not limited to those. I will give you my thoughts but I will not spend any more time on this silly subject.

    Secession is settled law, Texas v White…. The Constitution does not allow unilateral secession just because it does not explicitly recognize or denies secession. I always use the example I always use in explaining my views to fundamentalist, the Constitution does not allow us to have an air force. Think about that… We have articles VII that allows ratification and Article IV that allows Congress to admit new states but the constitution does not have a distinct provision for a state to leave the Union.

    I felt I owed you an explanation but it is not the topic of this blog and any new references to secession will be deleted.

    February 22, 2010 at 10:31 a.m.

  • dollysdad
    You're absolutely right, in hindsight, I should have left out any references to Bill Maher but I remember him saying that Friday night and wanted to give him the credit. After the 1992 elections many pundits made that statement…I reread my post and I see how you came away with that…Thanks for pointing that out.

    This is the point I was trying to make: If the liberal think tank, Brookings Institute, had a convention, they would not have Bill Maher or Stewart as keynote speakers.. I was trying to explain how far CPAC has come since the days of William F. Buckley.

    February 22, 2010 at 9:43 a.m.

  • Waywardwind

    I really didn't have Texas in mind when I made that statement…. The presidential primary election starts in Iowa and then goes to New Hampshire…. In Iowa candidates have to support corn ethanol and their base because voters have to vote by party affiliation, in New Hampshire that is not the case…. A Republican candidate will have to satisfy the evangelical voters in Iowa or be satisfied starting the primary season off with a loss. That's the reason John McCain and Rudy Giuliani and other prominent Republicans chose to skip that state…. We can get off that campaigning on a left or right mode until they get the nomination. Minnesota's governor Tim Pawlenty is a prime example; he is usually a mild-mannered moderate republican but he is currently running as a far right candidate putting himself in position to win Iowa. The moderator on Meet the Press made him look foolish yesterday because he was trying to defend his actions and words as a governor and what he is saying today…But I suspect you don’t really care about all this because you just wanted to make an anti-Obama statement, right:-)….besides my vote doesn’t really count in Texas since we use the Electoral College to select our president, you don’t need multiple Republican votes.

    February 22, 2010 at 9:33 a.m.

  • Mike..."Let the Independents vote in any primary and vote for any candidate..That will minimize the ideological purity many are trying to form."

    It's already that way. I can vote in any primary I choose; I just can't vote in both. Now, I generally vote in the Republican primary, but that DOES NOT mean that I consider myself a republican. As a matter of fact, if BO has an opponant in the next presidential election, I very well might vote in the Democrat primary just to have a chance to vote against him twice, once in the primary and then again in the general election, should he be the candidate.

    February 22, 2010 at 8:50 a.m.

  • AltonEaston..."You can call it a theory; to myself taking away the second constitutional amendment will lead to a complete break down of all the "Bill of Rights".

    You're absolutely right. Without the Second Amendment, the others are pretty useless. An unarmed man is a subject; an armed man is a citizen.

    February 22, 2010 at 7:49 a.m.

  • Writein, you sound like JR.

    Yes, I was a candidate for the Texas State Representative back in 1990. I have absolutely no ideal why this should be a burr in your behind. Or why you see it as a negative character flaw.

    Yes, I wrote a blog back in April of last year, concerning their "Domestic Terrorism Report". I made no theories about the report, just asked questions and wrote my concerns about the report.

    I have always opposed legislation against the constitutional right to bear arms. And I have pointed out the historical fact that in countries which genocide has occurred, the citizens did not have the right to bear arms. You can call it a theory; to myself taking away the second constitutional amendment will lead to a complete break down of all the "Bill of Rights".

    February 22, 2010 at 2:19 a.m.

  • Alton Easton

    Lets talk about the “fringe element”. You ran for State Rep am I right? Aren’t you the same person who made conspiracy theories concerning guns and the Homeland Security reports?

    February 21, 2010 at 9:48 p.m.

  • Washington was the one who wanted a strong federal government, one where the separate states became "united." Why did he want this? Because he fought our war for independence with a government that consisted of a loose confederation of states - it was pure He11.

    One of the reasons the South lost the war is they also suffered from some of the same problems. But even so, they came close to pulling it off. And they would have except for Lincoln and Grant - without them the South would be an independent country today, IMO.

    Do I believe the federal government is out of control? Absolutely. But I think the answer is term limits and the end of gerrymandering. It's the people's duty to get this done.

    February 21, 2010 at 7 p.m.

  • "those who would shiver into fragments the Union of these States; tear to tatters its now venerated constitution; and even burn the last copy of the Bible, rather than slavery should continue a single hour." 1861 extremists IMO, Lincoln didn't agree with them, but he ended up backed into a corner, so thus the civil war.

    One of those Fringe elements don't you know.

    February 21, 2010 at 6:20 p.m.

  • In your = case yes, Lincoln did not want to go to war, the southerns states claim started before Lincoln was elected.

    Congress passed the Compromise of 1850 which basically made California free and allowed the people to pick in Utah and New Mexico. This ability of a state to decide whether it would allow slavery was called popular sovereignty.

    In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed allowing the Kansas and Nebraska territories to decide for themselves using popular sovereignty whether they wanted to be free or slave.

    In 1857, Dred Scott lost his case proving that he should be free because he had been held as a slave while living in a free state. The Court ruled that his petition could not be seen because he did not hold any property. But it went further, to state that even though he had been taken by his 'owner' into a free state, he was still a slave because slaves were to be considered property of their owners. This decision furthered the cause of abolitionists as they increased their efforts to fight against slavery.

    On October 16, 1859, he led a group of seventeen including five black members to raid the arsenal located in Harper's Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia). His goal was to start a slave uprising using the captured weapons. However, after capturing several buildings, Brown and his men were surrounded and eventually killed or captured by troops led by Colonel Robert E. Lee. Brown was tried and hanged for treason. This event was one more in the growing abolitionist movement that helped lead to open warfare in 1861.
    With the election of Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln on November 6, 1860, South Carolina followed by six other states seceded from the Union. Even though his views about slavery were considered moderate during the nomination and election, South Carolina had warned it would secede if he won.Lincoln agreed with the majority of the Republican Party that the South was becoming too powerful and made it part of their platform that slavery would not be extended to any new territories or states added to the union.

    At the beginning of the War President Lincoln resisted "both the antislavery and the proslavery extremists," wrote historian Richard N. Current. "On the one hand, he opposed the abolitionists of the Garrisonian type, 'those who would shiver into fragments the Union of these States; tear to tatters its now venerated constitution; and even burn the last copy of the Bible, rather than slavery should continue a single hour.' On the other hand, he opposed the propagandists of the Calhounian line, those 'who, for the sake of perpetuating slavery, are beginning to assail and to ridicule the white-man's charter of freedom — the declaration that 'all men are created free and equal.'"3

    February 21, 2010 at 6:16 p.m.

  • Rollingstone,

    “Secession = rebellion = treason” unbelievable and sad that you would equate secession under a tyrannical government to rebellion and treason. If our forefathers believed this the United States would have never come into existence!

    February 21, 2010 at 6:08 p.m.

  • Secession = rebellion = treason, you have to be willing to die not just "vote" for some popular notion.

    February 21, 2010 at 5:46 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    February 21, 2010 at 5:44 p.m.

  • Rollingstone,

    Interesting that you believe one man, a man who was not even present during the writing and ratification of the constitution and did as much to trample on the Constitution as anyone has the final say so on the issue of secession.

    Lincoln said in his speech that secession was impossibility yet Rep Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut had only weeks before proposed an amendment to the Constitution “forbidding” secession without consent of Congress, the president and the other states. Why would there be a need for this amendment if secession was not allowed under the Constitution?

    At the same time many other northerners conceded the validity of secession and their representatives proposed amendments to limit the rights of secession, de facto conceding that the right of secession already existed. And, logically, it had to exist, because without such a right, the American colonies/states could not have seceded from the British Empire.

    Lincoln declared a blockade of the southern ports shortly after his inauguration yet under the law of nations, only a “country” could be blockaded, which raises the question of whether Lincoln was implicitly recognizing the Confederacy’s independence.

    Let’s now look at some Lincoln’s unconstitutional actions. In response to opponents of his war measure, acting as both legislator and executive, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus.
    He used arbitrary power to muzzle opposition. In Maryland he imprisoned state legislators who disagreed with him. He expelled others such as Clement Vallandgham from the United States.

    He waged a war to prove the impossibility of secession, yet he supported secession in 1863 when he recognized the western-pro-Union counties of Virginia as the new state of West Virginia, despite the Constitution which requires a states consent before a new state can be formed form its territory.

    Vallandigham said it well “Lincoln waged the civil war not for the preservation of the Union (it almost totally destroyed it.), but for the purpose of crushing liberty and to erect despotism”.

    Federalist 47:”the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

    Rollingstone I ask you if true oppressive tyranny were to rise to power in the United States would you still stand by your position that the right to secession is no more and the states and people alike “must” abide by the tyranny? Or would you reconsider the right of secession?

    February 21, 2010 at 5:38 p.m.

  • Legion there were several times in our history that secession was threaten:

    The Whiskey Rebellion around 1790.
    New England during the War of 1812.
    South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis
    The Civil War.

    There were also a couple of times territories tried to secede, namely the Burr treason trial and the Mormon War in 1857. Each time these threats were met with force or the threat of force by the federal government.

    As I said for good or evil this issue was settled by war. Whether we like it or not we are "one nation indivisible."

    And finally, the fourth section of Article Four requires the United States to guarantee to each state a republican form of government, and to protect the states from invasion and violence.

    February 21, 2010 at 5:27 p.m.

  • As I have been reading through some of this, I wonder what Texas would be like without support from the Federal Government?
    It's a sobering thought. Could Texans cover the cost of everything themselves without implementing a state income tax, higher property taxes, a new usage tax, and various other taxes?

    February 21, 2010 at 5:12 p.m.

  • Mike interesting comment you made " I will let your post stand for now but I will not allow any blog I write to be a vehicle for the fringe element. I do not want to discuss your nonsense and your next post will be deleted."
    Sounds like you believe you control post and comment make on Advocate's blogs. And also, it sounds like you are not a supporter of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
    Many of the visitors to this website wonder, what is your definition of "fringe element"?

    February 21, 2010 at 5 p.m.

  • I don't know rollinstone, whether a state can lawfully succeed, Lincolns speech that you sighted, was only his opinion. The first few words.. "I hold that in..."

    "I" being the keyword.

    February 21, 2010 at 4:43 p.m.

  • JB, I offer a section of Lincoln's first inaugural address:

    "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."

    It is interesting that the Confederate Constitution had no provisions relating to secession. In the end the issue was settled on the battlefield, once and for all.

    February 21, 2010 at 4:29 p.m.

  • Rollingstone,

    With all due respect, you have the issue of secession wrong. American as a nation was started with the very act you claim to be unconstitutional. You see America, prior to the Revolutionary war was composed of twenty-six British colonies which were extremely loyal to the crown even fighting for the King in the French and Indian War (1754-1763). This loyalty was maintained until the King and British Government became tyrannical and oppressive to the American colonies. It is at this point that 13 of the colonies “succeeded” from Great Britain; the official document of secession is what we know as the Declaration of Independence. The revolutionary war was fought when the King attempted to force the colonies back under British rule.

    The civil war in comparison came about with the same spirit of the Declaration of Independence. The people of the southern states had decided that the northern states and the federal government were not protecting their rights and complying with the constitution; an act of despotism. The war was fought by Lincoln and the northern states to “force” the south back under their rule. The main difference between these two wars was the outcome. Had Britain won they would have forced the colonies back under their rule just as Lincoln did with the southern states. The outcome of the civil war does not mean they secession is still not a key component of the states rights!

    Now I ask you, do you think that the founders who wrote the constitution and the 13 colonies that ratified it would have created and accepted a government that would prevent them from seceding from the Union that was created by the very act of secession?

    I awaited your evidence to the contrary.

    February 21, 2010 at 3:11 p.m.

  • Let's be clear, the Constitution does not allow secession. The purpose of our founders was "to form a more perfect union." As Lincoln said he needed to prove to the world that a republican form of government was not an absurdity. The Civil War put that issue to rest.

    Secondly I'm puzzled by this call for bipartisanship because the Democrats are in complete control, they don't need it. If there is little bipartisanship it's because most America's hate having things crammed down their throat - who does?

    The liberals and socialists want to pass their big agenda items and they want the rest of us to sit down and shut up. Well, it doesn't quite work that way. People are rightfully concerned about runaway spending and the complete lack of any "real" effort to rein it in.

    February 21, 2010 at 10:56 a.m.

  • exresident,

    Yes, you are correct that the Tenth Amendment does include “OR THE PEOPLE” but help me understand your point?

    Since the discussion revolved around the states and their role as individual parties to a federal compact, I saw no need to include a discussion around powers delegated to the individual.

    My response to Mike was that fawnrider was correct, the constitution does give the states the authority, right and duty to keep the federal government in check and that secession was one of the legal tools available to the states. This is the intent of the founders and the constitution, following this does not make one an extremist.

    Again, help me understand your point?

    (Sorry about the caps but since I am unable to use other means such as italics or bold to highlight key points I tend use caps. It by no means is designed to communicate shouting; it is simply to highlight a key point.)

    February 21, 2010 at 9:16 a.m.

  • Little touchy aren’t you Mike? It is interesting and quite reveling, how you will label someone as “the fringe element” who simple believes that the government (both Federal and State) should honor the constitution.

    The Constitution clearly limits (Article 1, Section 8) the power of the Federal (NOT NATIONAL) government and grants the States the remaining power (The Tenth Amendment). Since the Civil War, the states have abdicated their rights and powers to the Federal government leading to a reduction in the checks and balance of power and leading us into the mess we are in. It is TIME for the States to take back their constitutionally granted authority and RESTRAIN the FEDS! This is NOT the fringe element or an extremist view. It is the view of our founders and our Constitution!!

    As for secession, it also is NOT and extremist view. It was clearly spelled out during the ratification debates that the states were INDIVIDUAL PARTIES to a federal compact and that the states had the RIGHT to SECCED from the Union. Three states-Virginia, New York and Rode Island-explicitly reserved and spelled out this right to secede from the Union when they ratified the Constitution.

    In addition, if you ever care to read the Constitution, you can easily deduce the right to secession from the language of the Tenth Amendment: because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, that POWER, like all other “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states,” is “RESERVED TO THE STATES.”

    Might I suggest that you turn off MSNBC and CNN, put down TIME, NEWSWEEK and the other inaccurate news sources that you so commonly refer to and that you pickup and read the Constitution, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, the Constitutional Convention debates, and the State Ratifying Convention debates. Then maybe, just maybe the deception that has such a strangle hold on you may begin to be lifted.

    February 21, 2010 at 7:56 a.m.

  • Rollinstone.

    First of all, the administration is not dominated by socialist. Ask the Socialist party of America. They considered the Obama administration as capitalist pigs. Go try again on that Glenn Beck -style of name calling.

    Second, true conservatives are not in power in DC, BUT NOT in Austin, Victoria, and in the crossroads area.

    A anti-conservative, anti-country club backlash is coming in Texas.

    February 20, 2010 at 11:14 p.m.

  • The backlash will be against the socialist agenda of this administration - maybe you haven't noticed but conservatives are not in power.

    Many members of this administration are self proclaimed socialists, and even a few communists, and more than a few environmental extremists.

    I didn't make these accusations, I didn't have to they admit it. Yes, I am against socialism and reckless spending, and goofy economic plans. All of this stupid crap is going to cause our financial ruin and much suffering for years to come.

    If this makes me a right wing nut case then so be it. But you are right to worry about extremism - just wait and see how extreme things get after hyper inflation starts.

    February 20, 2010 at 11:02 p.m.

  • Rollinstone.

    Do not count your chicken before they hatch. Conservatives, right wingers, birthers, and others need to be careful as well.
    WOAI’s Joe Pags and Clear Channel was exposed for their mistreatment of their own, Mrs. Medina. It seems the chicken are coming home to roost. There will be a major backlash against Rush, Sean, Glenn, Joe, and any other right wing leader.

    Chicken coming home to roost never made sad, they always made me glad.

    February 20, 2010 at 10:38 p.m.

  • Mikey, I think you are swimming against the current, a flood tide is comming. You and your far left wing, socialist, big spending, liberal friends need to find some safe backwater to ride this thing out. And yeah I know you are going to delete this but sniff, I guess I will just have to find some way to handle your rejection...sobbing uncontrollably.

    February 20, 2010 at 8:35 p.m.

  • Texas is just one of 50 states that make up this great nation. Leaving just because it gets a little tough is for quitters and secessionist, who have a misguided interpretation of the Texas Constitution….The United States paid all of Texas’s outstanding bills when it was allowed to become a state and has benefited from the innovations, goods, and service from the other states as they have from ours.

    I will let your post stand for now but I will not allow any blog I write to be a vehicle for the fringe element. I do not want to discuss your nonsense and your next post will be deleted.

    February 20, 2010 at 4:42 p.m.

  • Only ONE way to "fix" D.C.

    For decades, Texans have been looking to Washington to remedy the problems that Washington causes. Decade after decade we send "good" people there to clean things up and make the D.C. beast "behave" and start to genuinely look out after our interests. Yet, decade after decade sees no improvement, but rather a continuing decline and destruction of our Constitutional Republic....our form of government is NOT a Democracy.

    Perhaps the reason conditions don't improve there is because the system that has developed over many decades in Washington D.C., in fact, is not what was designed for a free people. Our Republic was not designed to have massive amounts of governing authority and wealth concentrated in one, small location amongst a relatively small group of elected officials. There is no possible way for legislators in, say, Nebraska or New York to understand, and look after the best interests of those of us in Texas. We saw clear evidence of that in the recent political bribes given to Senators Ben Nelson (Nebraska), and Mary Landriou (Louisiana). The shameless display of political bribery served Texans not in the least, but only served to harm us further.

    Because of a lack of space to fully make my case,....I'll cut straight to the chase. We need to require our STATE legislature to perform as Constitutionally-directed and approve (preferably by a 2/3 majority) all UN-enumerated federal legislation and regulations coming out of D.C. If every STATE legislature in the nation did this, it would require all the special interests currently in D.C. to spread out over 50 states to peddle and beg for favors (and our money). It would restore governing balance to the nation wherein each state's best interests would be genuinely represented. There are many who will say this is not possible due to the "Commerce Clause", but the Commerce Clause does not trump the entire U.S. Constitution. The Constitution clearly does NOT grant Washington D.C. the last word on Un-enumerated governing privileges that the states, so far, have freely abandoned to Washington. This practice by the Texas legislature and government, in general, has to stop. In short, defund and deny governing authority to Washington....it's our right as a free people to do so. Stop granting D.C. "the last word" on UN-enumerated governing privileges.

    Forget about looking for solutions in D.C.....you're not going to find any. Consider refocusing and directing your attention to our state government. Look INSIDE Texas to solve the problems created in Washington. Begin transferring governing responsibility to our state legislators, governor, judges, attorney generals, and even county commissions and sheriffs. ...more on that later.

    February 20, 2010 at 4:11 p.m.