Attention Texans: WaPo Compares Occupy D.C. to the Alamo

Good evening killa

Submitted by cocodrie on Mon, 12/05/2011 - 2:07pm.

Beau frere, we're talking about America and you're giving us quotes of John Kechup from the People's Republic of Masshallucination

• Login to post comments

Aside from the libs in Austin

Submitted by vrwc13 on Mon, 12/05/2011 - 2:18pm.

Aside from the libs in Austin and in various pockets across the state (see here)

The sea of red in Texas other than Austin (college town), Houston, Dallas, San Antonio (all large cities with major entitlement populations like many other blue major cities on the map) and lands populated by illegal immigrants (can I say that?).

v

• Login to post comments

You're on target, Jon.

Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 12/05/2011 - 6:01pm.

Texas evolved from almost a pure Democrat state (1874 to 1979, or Richard Coke to Dolph Briscoe (governors)) until John Clement was elected Governor in 1978 and took office in 1979. The state legislature was OVERWHELMINGLY Democrat until just the past decade when control finally passed into Republican hands for the first time ever.

As I recall, Texas joined the United States more in line with a treaty. The Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas into the United States very clearly stated that Texas could be dissolved into five total states (four additional states in addition to Texas itself). There is no formal provision in the annexation that would allow Texas to simply secede, but it could subdivide based solely on the legislation passed at the time, provided that the Article IV, section 3 regarding splitting of existing states was observed. Texas has contended that since its annexation was essentially a treaty, it retained the right, granted by congressional authority in the passage of the annexation legislation itself, to subdivide if its voters so desired. In essence, Congress already relented on the issue of subdivision of an existing state, as the constitutional provisions regarding splitting a state were written and existing prior to the annexation of Texas and the joint resolution provided permission to do so. Would make interesting litigation and history if one part of Texas decided it was time to go it alone. Personally, those of us who do not live in the Rio Grande valley would gladly give them permission to saw off that portion of the state and let it drift into the Gulf of Mexico so we would have a better border protection than we do now.

My father always said he believed Texas was not like the United States. His family came here because it was open country, with vast opportunities for the hardworking immigrants (of every conceivable nationality) who settled here in great numbers. My wife's family came here for similar reasons, that being the opportunities and the desire to escape the social limitations that existed as horrible vestiges of the Spanish colonial system which left both of our families with few opportunities and rights. You would've had to experience this to understand it, but much of the Latin American world (particularly South America) lived under a very rigid caste system for centuries and these social barriers stood even after Bolivar and other liberators kicked the Spanish out of their domains. Brazil was not quite as bad from what I am told, but still nothing like the US at the time.

The OWSers have either compared themselves or been compared to Rosa Parks (where is Al Dolt-on's rage on that one?!) and now to the Alamo fighters. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Spoiled trust fund brats, angry unhospitalized psychotics and 60s has-been, blissed-out throwaways are the OWS protesters. They can fantasize all they want, but the only thing they sacrificed was soap, water and deodorant.

• Login to post comments