The Alamo Guard Returns

(Original Post at: https://texianpartisan.com/alamo-guard-returns/)

Last weekend marked the triumphant return of the Alamo Guard to the Alamo!

For regular readers of the Texian Partisan, you likely remember an article published last month on how a four-year tradition of honoring the Texas Republic’s fallen soldiers had been cut short, rather abruptly. However, do to your quick and determined efforts, the tradition of laying a wreath at the Alamo wall every second Saturday of the month has been restored.

“It really felt great to be back,” says Alamo Guard Captain Chris Jacka, whose company was in rare form on this momentous occasion, featuring a larger than normal showing of Guard members. “The Rangers were very gracious in welcoming us back, and wanted it made clear again that they stand with us 100%. They were glad we were able to continue our professional relationship.” Indeed. The Alamo Guard is very grateful to the Alamo Rangers for first making possible the Guard’s memorial on Alamo grounds. Additionally, the TNM is grateful that the management of the Alamo saw fit to reverse their original decision, and looking forward to greater spirit of cooperation in the future.

With the resolution of last month’s drama, it is good to know that Guard is back, doing their part to preserve our heritage as Texans, reminding us to recognize the dear price that was paid for our land. No doubt, the position of the Guard is now much stronger than it had been. Hopefully, this only beginning of good things to come for the Alamo Guard, the Texas Nationalist Movement, and Texas.

If you would like to see a list of upcoming Alamo Memorial Marches click here.

Advertisements

New Poll Suggests That the Dutch Favor Leaving the EU

Read the original posting here: https://texianpartisan.com/new-poll-suggests-dutch-favor-leaving-eu/

In the wake of Brexit and similar independence movements throughout Europe, a new survey suggests that “exit” fever has hit the Dutch!

According to a poll conducted by the Maurice de Hond group, 56 per cent of the Dutch (after excluding the undecided) would “vote to leave the EU compared to 44 per cent who would opt for remain.” This is true across age and Gender, varying only a little between groups.

Per an article that ran in the Express, the rise in popularity for a NEXIT in the Netherlands owes to the inclusion an option in that poll for political independence while maintaining some economic ties to Europe. For many, this was a more palatable choice, allowing some to give their support for independence whereas before they were unwilling to do so. These findings are significant and could have huge ramifications for the Dutch in their upcoming elections.

Reinvigorated nationalism seems to be a trend in the world, moving it away from the favoring of multi-nation governance. Even in Texas and other states, similar polls have found that a huge number of citizens believe that their states would be better off if separated from the government in Washington. A 2014 Reuters poll found that the percentages favoring independence were as great as 50% among the two biggest voting blocs (Republicans and Independents), and even 35% of Democrats think that Texas should be independent once more. Yet, somewhat counterintuitively, this kind of support is not often met with politicians trying to exploit it. Unlike countries like Britain, France, and the Netherlands, there are few candidates in Texas that will openly support independence. However, with numbers like these, the question remains, “How long can the government in Austin continue to snub this issue?” If these trends continue, the issue of independence will continue to grow until it’s impossible to ignore. The political establishment should take note; it could be that future Texas political candidates, perhaps even for governor, might run successfully on the cause of restoring Texas sovereignty while their generation goes down in failure, with the naive belief that the idea of Texit will just go away.

The Itsy Bitsy Spider and the Unbridled Federal Agency

(Photo: Gallifer Cave, Travis County, TX (c) 2011, Piers Hendrie)

Here’s another peice I wrote for Texian Partisan. Original post at: https://texianpartisan.com/itsy-bitsy-spider/

 

The biggest issue with the US Congress’ habit of delegating its law-making authority to the regulatory arm of the executive branch is that it often leads to ambiguous standards and low accountability for federal agents implementing policy. Meanwhile, the regular folks are left walking on eggshells, not knowing exactly what’s expected of them, but being very aware that they’re nonetheless at the mercy of a federal agency with little oversight, a big imagination for filling in the vagary of federal statutes, enormous law-enforcement authority, and literally the power to print money.

 

In a recent story from FoxNews, one Texas land-owner finds himself the latest target of the regulatory state. Rancher John Yearwood of Georgetown, Texas had the misfortune of an endangered species of spider being discovered on his property. Known as the Bone Cave Harvestman or Texella reyesi (an admittedly cool name!), the blind cave dwelling spider is preventing Mr. Yearwood from using his land. No, it’s not that the spider is so dangerous that John needs to steer clear of it, rather it’s the EPA that’s the danger.

 

Enforcing the Endangered Species act, the Environmental Protection Agency is defending our eight-legged friend with the power of levying fines and incarceration if Mr. Yearwood does anything that might disturb the little arachnid. From all appearances, John wants to stay on the right side of the law and comply with whatever is required of him, but that’s the problem: the EPA won’t specify what he can or can’t do on his own property. At this point, any activity on his land could conceivably get him into trouble with DC, so for now, the only way he’ll know that he’s done something wrong is when they come to arrest him. Until the federal bureaucracy is reigned in, Mr. Yearwood is left with little safe recourse but to leave his property unused while petitioning to get old Texella off the endangered species list. Until either of these things happens, he might as well own land on the moon; it’ll be as much use to him.

 

As a person formerly connected to the National Park Service, I am not unsympathetic to the cause of preserving endangered flora and fauna. Certainly, most Texans would likely want to preserve our native species for future generations to enjoy, if for no other reason. However, the Washington solution seems to follow a typical pattern of ham-fisted implementation and apathy to common courtesy and respect for the rights of land-owners. The EPA could work with local authorities and ranchers like Mr. Yearwood to find a compromise that is satisfactory to all concerned, perhaps providing generous compensation if nothing can be worked out, or at the very least providing specific guidance to those trying to get along under such unfortunate circumstances. Instead, the federal government does what it likes, indifferent to how many criminals they make out of the otherwise law-abiding. “We’re from Washington! Stinks to be You!” should be the EPA’s motto.

The Texas Sovereignty Act: The Right Direction, But Not Far Enough

Photo by Daniel Mayer

Here’s another article I submitted to the Texian Partisan.

https://texianpartisan.com/680-2/

For most in Texas, the problem with the federal government squeezing the sovereignty of the states, much like Boris Karloff choking the life out of his creator in Frankenstein, is a huge concern. Filed on February 23rd for the current Texas Legislative session, a bill known as The Texas Sovereignty Act, or House Bill 2338, attempts to block all unconstitutional actions of Congress, the courts, or the Executive branch from being enforced in Texas.

This bill proposes the creation of a permanent Joint Legislative Committee on Constitutional Enforcement. This committee would consider if a federal act was passed with the appropriate original-intent authority of the US Constitution. If the committee votes that improper authority was used in a federal action, they would then deliver their finding that it was unconstitutional to the Texas legislature. If the Legislature concurs, they would then pass a resolution and forward it to the Governor. Finally, if the governor signs it into law, that federal action would become illegal in Texas, as well as making those attempting to enforce the nullified action in danger of prosecution from the State of Texas. Furthermore, the government of Texas would formally inform the federal government that Texas will not comply with said action.

First, I would like to state that I admire the spirit with which this bill was written. It’s very specific in how it defines and proposes to deal with the very real threat of un-constitutional power-grabs by all branches of the federal government. It makes me proud as a Texan to think that such a bill could even be considered and such a line of thought is definitely a step in the right direction towards reclaiming Texas’ stolen sovereignty. There’s only one problem: it’s not likely to work.

Let’s examine the wisdom behind taking on Washington while still being very much under its control. The moment that Texas nullifies its first federal act, it’ll be war with DC. It’s not as if they’re going to say “Our bad!” and back down. Now I’m just speculating, but with speculation based on real-world analogs (some which I’ve hyperlinked to), and this is what I think likely to happen. It will begin with threats from the executive and condemnation in congress. No doubt, someone will challenge it in court, with an unaccountable judge waiting in the wings to anxiously ready to imagine a reason why Texas… can’t! In the meantime, congress and the president will begin punitive actions against Texas. They’ll try to disrupt commerce, seize large swaths of Texas land, shutdown airline travel, withhold federal funds, forget to enforce the border, etc. Even if all this fails to temper Texas’ resolve, don’t look to Washington to ease the pressure. That’s when they’ll get creative, finding new torments and slights of the pettiest kind, knowing that they must make an example of Texas or else other states will start asserting their 10th amendment rights. Under such pressure, what then will Texas do?

I absolutely agree with the authors of this bill that DC is acting in an illegitimate manner and something needs to be done, but Washington’s been this way for a very long time, and merely telling the modern incarnation of the federal government that they can only exercise the powers enumerated them by COTUS is like telling a heroin addict to stop trainspotting. How many junkies have sobered-up that way? Not very many, I’d wager. For an addict to recover, he must first be isolated. COTUS is supposed to be our means of isolating the government, but there’s not enough collective political will left in the Union to commit our junky. And as we all should know, Washington is incapable of reforming itself.

The only way to effectively deal with Washington is to declare our legal right to peaceful independence. Once we’ve given Washington notice that they are in breach of contract, and our partnership is nullified, the recourse of D.C. has to punish us with its courts, regulatory state, or our own money dangling as a carrot to preferred action will be effectively zero. They’ll be out of the picture, restrained by the knowledge that their status in the world and the outcome of negotiations (which the US will want) will be hampered by harassing behavior. Besides, if you consider the ends of half-measures like TTSA, they’ll probably lead to independence, ultimately. After all, when the federal government doesn’t back down, Texas will have little other recourse than to reclaim full sovereignty, that is unless we back down, adopt a submissive posture, and embrace our status of DC drone. Such a humiliating result to this risky gambit would be a waste of time, bring unnecessary suffering, and justly doom the careers of every Texas politician who lost their spine.

It’s time to face facts and abandon partial solutions. The federal monster, created by the states, is loose, wrecking all in its path. If we go at Washington with the 10th amendment, they won’t be impressed, and will do their best to make life miserable for Texans. The only way to deal with this monster is to unmake it, at least as far as Texas is concerned. And why not? At this point, Texas needs Washington like an oak needs termites. If we assert our right to leave the union for interfering with our sovereignty, a right remanded to the states in COTUS and claimed in the Texas Constitution, then we can build our own nation free from interference from the Potomac, making our own decisions on how to govern. Forgive the 80’s film reference, but the only way to win at the federal power game is not to play.

– Ryan Thorson

North Carolina May be Taking a Step Towards Independence

Photo attribution: By User:Zscout370 – File:Flag of North Carolina.svg, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8385017

Here’s my latest article published in the Texian Partisan!

https://texianpartisan.com/north-carolina-may-taking-step-towards-independence/

 

North Carolina has a history of chaffing under its federal yoke. Those of us in Texas definitely know what they’re concerned with, such as the disrespect Washington shows for our democratic/republican process; the way it inserts itself into our lives, even in the most mundane areas; and the way it tries to shape our values against our will. Well, NC might be making a move to solve their problems with the federal bureaucracy, and permanently. North Carolina is considering re-legalizing secession in their state.

 

Many are under the impression that Lincoln winning the Civil War, a conflict that NC found itself on the losing side, ended any question of secession. However, this is not any more accurate than it is in a hypothetical case of a local sheriff appropriating someone’s house under false pretenses. His residing there owes more to his title and the gun on his hip than to any legal or moral authority that he may have.

 

The supreme law of US is the Constitution, and it assigns only limited authority to the federal government, outlining certain enumerated powers that are its alone. To punctuate this limitation we have the tenth amendment, which states that the “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Just in case there are any politicians reading this, I will simplify it. If the Constitution doesn’t explicitly give the federal government a power over the states, it doesn’t have it. Also, if the Constitution doesn’t explicitly forbid the states a power, then the states or the individual citizenry retain that power; this would include the power to leave the Union. Seems simple, right? Well it is, the logically/legally tortured Supreme Court decision, Texas v. White, notwithstanding. And even though politicians and judges have built careers on implementing or mitigating unconstitutional DC actions, that only means the law is being ignored, not that their actions are justified.

 

There is only one way for secession to be legally eliminated as an option for the people of any state, and that’s if they themselves give it up. This could come in a form of a ratified COTUS amendment or, as North Carolina has done, in a state constitutional restriction of that power. However, there seems to be enough discontent with the overreach of the federal government that the state is possibly rethinking the wisdom of such a decision.

 

According to an article from The News & Observer, Republicans (George Cleveland, Larry Pittman, and Michael Speciale) in NC’s House of Representatives proposed a bill to create a 2018 referendum that, if passed, would remove Article I sec. 4 of their state Constitution that says, “This State shall ever remain a member of the American Union; the people thereof are part of the American nation; there is no right on the part of this State to secede; and all attempts, from whatever source or upon whatever pretext, to dissolve this Union or to sever this Nation, shall be resisted with the whole power of the State.” This, combined with a few other planned tweaks to the CONC, would clear the only obstacle to NC leaving the Union and reclaiming her own independence.

 

A growing amount of states and citizens are now seriously considering full or partial independence measures. With such a trend, you’d think that the US government would be more motivated to make substantial reforms of federal power, but this is not the case. In fact, it is not altogether certain that such necessary changes to preserve freedom and avert the Union’s demise through fiscal mismanagement are even possible in its current sorry state. Even top-down invasive measures like Obamacare, far from being repealed already as was thought likely, the conversation has turned to how much of this unconstitutional law will the new Republican government retain.

 

As the US government seems locked-in to an authoritarian track, more and more states are realizing that their best option for preserving their freedom and economic solvency is independence. If North Carolina moves ahead with reviving the option of secession, for lack of true reform in DC, I guarantee that it won’t be the last.

Streep Fighter vs The Twitter Warrior

Did anyone catch Meryl Streep’s speech last night? Donald Trump certainly did! His tweeted response was typical Trump fair: attack them personally, link them to your political opponent, deny the charges, remind the audience that Trump is a winner, attack the media, etc. Well, without unpacking Streep’s whole speech, here are a few thoughts on it. ‪
It was enevitable that the left, and its propaganda arm in Hollywood, was going to find something not to like in a Republican President. This would have been the case whether the occupant was the walking faux-pas that is Trump or the less flawed Marco Rubio. That being said, it is disingenuous, bordering on the ridiculous, for Trump to pretend that Streep had no point. Trump did poke a little fun at a certain reporter’s disability. He told his rally audience, “You gotta see this guy,” and then begin flailing his arms around in mockery of this person’s particular affliction. Hey, he can do that if he wants to; he’s breaking no law! If Trump wants to establish new heights for the avant-garde of sticking-it-to-the-establishment by bucking their stupid rules about not attacking weaker people, he can. Seems a silly crusade, but ok. However, he shouldn’t lie about it, especially when the reality is so obvious to anybody with access to YouTube. Also, the PEOTUS shouldn’t be surprised if a lot of people, even Hollywood types, find his particular form communication troubling. If Donald is a little ashamed or embarrassed by what he did, he should try apologizing. However, at least be man about it.

As for Streep’s other concerns, not everything was objectionable, at least on its face. Besides her plea for civility from those in power, she called for the need of a “principled press” to hold power to account while making an authority appeal to the Constitution. What’s to disagree with? The President does need to be accountable to the Constitution, and held to account by a watchdog press (lately playing Obama’s lapdog). Assuming I disagreed, don’t even vapid liberal actors, who are as far removed from regular people as Michael Moore is from a salad, have just as much right to use their particular platform to advocate for their beliefs as anyone else does?

There is one issue, however, regarding the Golden Globes editorial that deserves addressing: consistency. I must have missed the time that Ms. Streep showed concern for the Constitution and an independent press when Barack Obama was ruling through executive fiat and having his Justice Department conduct raids on reporters who were investigating his administrations various scandals. For some reason, that didn’t seem to bother Meryl, or at least she didn’t use her fame then to criticize the President on some of the more troubling abuses of his authority. Don’t misunderstand me. It’s nice to hear from all these born-again federalists! Welcome to the party! However, it is noteworthy that when a more favorable tyranny was being perpetrated by one from her own political persuasion, Streep saw fit to not speak out.

There are many areas that Donald Trump is and will be deserving of critique. Certainly, Streep’s performance was only one of many salvos yet to come from the S.S. Tinseltown. Yet, until Streep and her class of actors-cum-political gurus address and apologize for 8 years of turning a blind eye to the violation of the principles they now seem to have whole-heartedly embraced, they’ll have zero credibility. Their criticisms will fall on deaf ears, persuading no one that doesn’t already agree. Good thing for her, credibility or persuasion isn’t what Streep’s after, nor Martin Sheen, nor any number of celebrities that have been popping up to do insipid and homogeneous political ads. Rather, what they want is to signal to their pals, other vapid Hollywood actors, to say “Look at me! I’m a good person!” Well, to that I’d say, “Mission accomplished!” Be satisfied, because you’ll have little else. I still loved Streep in Julie & Julia, however!

-Ryan Thorson
**UPDATE***

New info has come to my attention that Trump wasn’t mocking the aforementioned man’s disability. Though the video on its own with Trump’s words seemed pretty clear, I have to admit that this time I got it wrong.

Chicago Hate: Crime, Racial Prejudice, and the Media.

Breaking last night, was the story of four Chicago residents that had been arrested for kidnapping another Chicago-area man with mental disabilities. They forced this man to drink from the toilet, bound him, beat and kicked him, cut the clothes from his body, and assaulted him with a knife, drawing blood. And since our society has undergone a shame-ectomy, all of this was done live on Facebook. In viewing the video, it becomes clear by the choice of insults used by the perpetrators that this crime was racially and politically motivated. The victim has been reported recovering in a hospital, and the perpetrators have been charged with committing hate-crimes as well as other charges. “Tragic,” you might say. “I hope they receive the fullest punishment that the law can provide.” Correct. They should. However, there is a component to this story that has some in the main stream media a bit perplexed on how to handle it. The peculiar part of this story is that the perpetrators were black and their victim was white, and they carried out their attacks saying, “F**k Donald Trump. F**k white people.”

Since hate-crime legislation started being enacted, it has not been unknown to find examples of criminal behavior that meet the definition of a hate-crime and yet are perpetrated on whites. A simple search on YouTube will yield numerous videos of white people being attacked by groups of non-whites, beating them, and hurling racial epithets at them. For instance, also in Chicago, in a recent post-election attack, a middle-aged white man was pulled from his car and beaten for stated racial and political motives. However, it’s not often you hear of hate-crimes charges being filed in such cases where the victim is white. Until recently, the reason for the charges in the Chicago case hadn’t even been fully specified. Earlier reports indicated that the Chicago Police incredulously maintained that the attack wasn’t racially motivated, but because of the victim’s mentally disability. This, even though the perpetrators were shown cutting at this man and saying, “F**k white people,” on the aforementioned video. That evidence would seem pretty cut and dry, to most people. It’s not like they said, “F**k the disabled,” is it? However, according to this afternoon’s CPD press conference on this case, they made clear that the racial component of this crime received equal consideration in the decision to file hate-crime charges. I’m glad they were clear on this point. It would be a horrible message to send that the crime in this was in selecting a victim from the protected list, “but feel free to target competent whites!”

The way the media has been reporting this story has been has a bit of a mixed bag. Some articles and TV stories have reported this on the merits, while others have not. Few want to justify it, though some have. Some have even gone the extra step of blaming Donald Trump in some capacity. Particularly egregious was the way CNN’s Don Lemon approached it. While one of his panel called the attack “evil,” Lemon himself refused to categorize it as such, saying, “I don’t think it’s evil. I don’t think it’s evil. I think these are young people, and I think they have bad home training.” Certainly Mr. Lemon is entitled to his strange opinion. However, if this act didn’t make his cut, one should wonder at what Lemon’s definition of evil is.

Don Lemon is just one example of the gentle consideration that media gives when dealing with crimes perpetrated by non-whites. For instance, the media has a reputation for often omitting the ethnicity of the perpetrator in reporting crimes committed by minorities, while at the same time rarely flinching from exposing the background of a white assailant. As to why they do it is speculative, but I’d wager it probably comes from a mixture of varied left-wing opinions, such as reporters generally have penchant for. These beliefs could include the unique culpability of whites for historic injustices (including racial disparities in U.S. prisons), the patronizing belief that racial minorities should be coddled and held to low expectations for civilized behavior because of historic injustice and cultural relativism, and the belief that whites will retaliate against innocent minorities if they report the racial make-up of said perpetrators. If this is what they believe, the sensible thing would be to just omit the ethnicity of all suspects, but that’s not always the case. It is curious, however, how fears of racial prejudice lead to actual racial prejudice.

The Chicago attack and like attacks should give us pause before we continue business as usual, employing the same failed solutions championed by our politically correct culture. If the goal is to reduce or eliminate racial prejudice, then perhaps we should de-emphasize race. No one should be automatically considered in the victim class or the oppressor class. We all should be on the protected list, or none of us should be. One thing we might consider is dropping this whole ridiculous notion of hate crimes. Those kidnappers from Chicago committed crimes against a weaker guy, and that’s all that should matter. I don’t care if they hated this man personally or if they just hated whatever group they saw him representing; such as white, disabled, or a Trump supporter. I only care that they committed a crime. If the races were reversed, to me it would matter just as much. This should be the case with the law, the media, and society. It isn’t, though. Justice, far from being blind, seeks to favor ideological bias over the evidence or law. It’s time we start insisting that our society stop showing any favoritism on a racial basis. At some point, people must be responsible for their own actions, alone. Pretending otherwise leads to crimes like what happened to this man in Chicago. If we keep trying to play this game of favorites, we aren’t going to have a society much longer. For if we can’t agree that such actions are “evil,” what can we agree on?

 

– Ryan Thorson