Republican Primary Picks 2026

 

samples of recent campaign flyers

Early voting for the Primary Election starts Tuesday, February 17, here in Harris County, Texas, with Election Day on Tuesday, March 3. So I’m working to make my choices and recommendations.

Once again, we have the longest ballot in the nation—maybe the world. And this may be my longest post ever. I didn’t want to split it up, because early voting is only days away, and people are asking me for my picks.

The quick version is this chart. While I try to make it all worth reading, this is so long, you may want to scroll to what you need.

As I’ve written this blog for the past 15 years, I stand by what I’ve said. Occasionally further information comes out, which may change what I would say, and a few times I’ve gotten information from sources that turned out to be wrong. Those instances have been few. But when I write about my ballot choices—which mainly comes up at these biennial Primary Election times—I am less certain than I am about my other writing. I have consistently, always, tried to make the best choices, among the choices available, to support strong constitutional conservative candidates. But I have at times been disappointed.

This is to say, feel free use my opinions here as a data point, but do your own research. Get to know as much as you can about the candidates. I’ll share what I know, but under a time crunch, I might not yet know enough.

We’ll go down the ballot, US Senate and Congress, then statewide races first. Then we’ll do local races and propositions.

To read the full article, FOLLOW LINK TO SUBSTACK.

Coercive vs. Cautious Response

We’re seeing daylight after the onset of the pandemic now. Coming back, not quite to the normal we knew, but toward more functional than a shutdown. We don’t know all the data we would like for a complete picture, but it’s enough to conclude some things in general.

It has been a scary thing. The illness is real. It has taken many lives. But it has not taken anywhere near as many lives as we were told were likely—the scare that caused the world to shut down. In fact, the Imperial College model used to make that call was so wrong that it takes one’s breath away. Looking into it, people who do the technical work and coding for such things report they are appalled at the sloppy work and wonder how anything so full of trash was ever given credibility.

That’s a question I’d like answered at some point. How did a model by a British doctor who had been wildly inaccurate in every data model he’d ever produced—a person who violated his own lockdown protocol to carry out an adulterous affair—how did this person’s model get put forth as credible in the first place, let alone so credible that the world shut down over it?

The good news is that the virus was much less virulent than the model predicted.  And the changes society made to keep it from spreading at overwhelming rates accomplished their purpose.

But the accomplishment may not be in lives saved, but in deaths postponed. Because the virus spread slower, but not halted. Slow and steady wins the race, as the fable says. So the virus will still make it’s way through the population. The two advantages to a slower spread are preventing the hospitals from getting overwhelmed, and giving time for development of treatments.

Both of those goals are worthwhile, but it is debatable whether they have been worth what they have cost us. It isn’t a matter of saving lives vs. saving an economy. It is postponing lives lost in this particular way vs. losing lives in other ways as a result of the economic and social shutdown.

There are tradeoffs with almost any decision. Do you risk X to get Y? Do you know enough to judge whether the risk is worth it? Leaders in policy-making positions have to make this kind of decision every day.

But one thing I think we’re observing from this pandemic response is that there have been generally two categories of response: coercive or cautious. There has been very little cavalier, incautious response. So let’s look at just the two ways.

I’m in a state with a cautious response. We did do a statewide economic pause—with most businesses closed or working from home. Food, electricity, and emergency hospital care were still available. People began wearing masks a week or so into that time. And now that we’re nearly a month into slowly opening back up, most people in stores and more crowded places (by these new standards) still wear masks.

While Harris County, which contains most of Houston, has a comparatively high number of cases for the state, it has a low rate per population. Some of the darker spots in the graphic are actually smaller populations with a fairly low number of cases that wreak havoc on their stats.

Covid-19 cases per 1,000 residents in Texas, by county, as of May 28, 2020
Interactive graphic from Texas Tribune

The news from the Department of State Health Services today says that Texas is approaching the million tests milestone. With the increase in testing, positive responses are down in the 3% range. Hospitalizations for the virus peaked three weeks ago and have remained flat for a month. Active cases are down over 600. We’ve had our first two-day decline: down 391 Tuesday, down 216 more Wednesday.

In other words, even though we worried about a spike in new cases following phases 1 and 2 of opening up—which was certainly a common and logical expectation—we had a temporary rise, but that spike did not happen.

It may be that we’re coming into the hot humid weather that this virus doesn’t like. Florida's outcomes are similar to ours. 

But New Zealand, in their fall/winter season, just announced that their last Covid-19 patient left the hospital; they have zero active cases. So it may be that the virus has simply run its course, at least for now. It’s unknown whether we’ll get another surge in the fall. That will depend on whether there has been sufficient mutation of the virus to become essentially a new strain—like we get with the annual flu, which, if I understand correctly, is the ever-present remnant of the 1918 flu pandemic. So, that information is still unknown.

But, if the virus has actually been running its course, and we’ll be done with it, then some lives actually were saved by our slowing the spread. I’m open to that possibility. I know I’ve personally felt safer in public when people around me wear masks. Since I’m badly affected just by a common cold, I have to say the mask wearing and better hygiene by everyone has actually made me personally feel safer. But, I don’t think I have the right to ask everyone to wear masks forever (they’re not comfortable, and they cover everyone’s smile) just so I feel a bit safer.

So, for now I’m willing to look at mask wearing as a gesture of goodwill. But you don’t shame people for failing to step up to a particular level of goodwill just because you’re willing to step up there. Shaming is the opposite of a gesture of goodwill. And besides, you can’t coerce people into actual goodwill.

Which brings us back to the coercive version of leadership. Our county judge, Lina Hidalgo, is a handy example. She has tried mandating mask wearing—stopped by the governor. She has attempted to shut down parks. She has attempted to keep businesses closed longer than the governor’s recommendation—even though our hospitals have plenty of capacity and our population has not been hard hit. She has tried letting felons out of prison out of her compassion while simultaneously threatening to jail regular citizens for daring to go about their lives in some way she’s not willing to permit.

Last Thursday, when Mr. Spherical Model and I drove up to see our kids and grandkids for the first time in all these months, Hidalgo announced that the shutdown in Houston had to remain in effect until June 10. It took her an additional 15 hours to post the edict. Whether she has power to enforce it is another question. 

Yet we have, safe, cautious, goodwill moves to open things back up—not a sudden mobbing of the public spaces and businesses. So coercion was never necessary.

Coercion has a purpose other than our safety.

There is a direct correlation between coercion and economic damage; the harsher the shutdown rules, and the longer they are left in place, the more unemployment and economic fallout, obviously. But there is no correlation between coercive long shutdown and low death rates, at least in the United States. In fact, there appears to be almost an inverse correlation. Texas, Georgia, and Florida so far are getting great numbers after opening up. In fact, after some brief worry in mid-March, none of these states had much to worry about.

The hardest hit states seem to be those with more coercive measures.

Texas is 15th in order of total deaths. But when you take into account population, it's down near the bottom, in 41st place. 

Rate of Covid-19 cases per 100,000 population, by state, as of May 28, 2020
Original chart from Statista.com

I considered developing a graphic, to see whether there was a correlation by party and death rate. Maybe another day. I think we have the more typical urban/rural divide to explain many differences.

But I’m guessing that there are personality differences between the different reactions. People who are fearful submit more easily to more coercion. People who generally feel they’re in control of their own lives and destinies tend to resist coercion.

So, if you’re a power monger, a tyrant (or would-be tyrant), you stir up fear as a strategy to control your subjects.

Since you’re not a subject, but a citizen, you need to assert your own authority. In order to avoid being oppressed by a tyrant, you need to know as much as you can, to decide for yourself what you are willing to do for your own health and for others (two quite different values).

If you’re scared enough, you might trust government to decide for you when to attend church in person again. But if you’re capable of figuring out how to be as safe in a church as you are in Walmart or on a city bus, then maybe you don’t trust a government that keeps your church doors closed. Maybe you find something really wrong with how Chicago’s mayor sent authorities, swat style, to shut down a church. 

Or maybe you can decide, without the help of an overseer, when to go get a haircut from a stylist who wears a mask and washes everything carefully between customers. 

You might be living under tyranny if you are allowed to go to Walmart, but not to the beach and go out, alone, on a surfboard, because of the need to “flatten the curve.”

You might be living under tyranny if you’re allowed to take your family to the beach, but can’t sit on or picnic on the sand; you have to go directly from your car into the water. (Ben Shapiro suggested maybe he should use a cannon to shoot his children into the water from his car.)

You might be living under tyranny if golfing or skateboarding are considered risky for spreading a respiratory virus.

You might be living under tyranny if you’re allowed to walk on a path but not bicycle, because of the need to prevent spreading coronavirus.

You might be living under tyranny if you’re allowed to have online services broadcast from your church, but only if no one sings.

The stories pop up daily. Consider looking at each story and asking, does this make logical sense? And than ask, is this a cautious response or a coercive response?

One thing I think we’ll see is that coercive governments lead to much worse economic situations for their people, possibly combined with worse health outcomes. Again, some of the health differences will be because of urban density. And the density of Houston or Los Angeles is simply not the same as the density of New York or New Jersey. But, what if the coercive measures—for the sake of public safety—don’t actually accomplish public safety? What if your protective government enforces policies that put nursing homes at risk, and continue to run public transportation, but force you to lose your job or shut down your small business, stay in your home, and don’t leave for any reason except to get food? Are they keeping you safe, or keeping you controlled?

At what point are you willing to consider reasserting your own authority?

That’s what I’m suggesting. Breathe deep. Look at the actual real-time data for your location. Get a full picture—not just number of deaths, which goes up with no chance of going back down, obviously. But death rates per population, infection rates per population, intensity of infection for your demographic, and anything else that gives you something other than just the scariest numbers without context.

We can beat this thing. We’re doing that. And it seems to be letting up, possibly naturally without our doing anything but pray. (By the way, it looks to me that the worldwide fast day we had April 10 marked the beginning of the downward trend of the virus. Like this chart shows for Houston’s new cases per day.)

The 7-day rolling average of new cases is better than
the daily count, because testing gets reported irregularly. The upper line is
Harris County, which is much more populous than surrounding counties.
The chart is from the Houston Chronicle today, p. A20.
I added the red line to mark the date of our worldwide fast.

But can we beat the tyranny that has opportunistically used our fear for its evil purposes?

As plagues go, Covid-19 has been bad but not “Black Death” bad. But the government-caused economic and social devastation in the name of safety from the virus has been a worldwide plague not seen since—I don’t know. Pompeii? The flood?

Our recovery depends on reasserting our God-given rights to life, liberty, and property—to pursue happiness. It’s doable. Maybe in a relatively short time. But we have to throw off the fear to take away the tyrants’ power.

Gotta Love Texas

I’ve probably mentioned this before, but Texas is not your everyday run-of-the-mill state. It used to be its own country. And there’s a certain pride here—that is not without substance. When we go to foreign countries, and people ask where we’re from, we are more likely to say Texas than the USA. Texas is kind of All-American. Anything good about being American is embedded in saying we’re from Texas. Texas love is something I didn’t really know about until we moved here.

Sometimes we get together just to give a happy “Yee Haw!” that we’re here. So that’s what we did for fun this week.

Governor Greg Abbott was in Houston on Tuesday, and we (son Political Sphere and I, along with grandson Little PS2) got to go hear him speak.  It was a feel-good kind of experience—very American, very Texan. So I thought I’d share a few lines. (Note: any quotes are from my notes and may not be exact quotes.)

Governor Greg Abbot is greeted by the
restaurant owner hosting the event

Governor Abbott is Texas proud:

I don’t believe it’s the United States of America that is broken, but it’s Washington, DC, that is broken, and it takes states like Texas to fix it.

That kind of theme came up several times. He also said, “Texas is what America is supposed to be. American needs Texas now more than ever.”

There was a bit of Texas swagger, about what Abbott himself has done, and what Texas is doing that probably every other state ought to do.

We even love the shape of our state.
This photo is a University of Texas class photo

He reminded us that, as Attorney General, he sued Barack Obama 31 times, several times challenging Obamacare, a law which only stands “because Justice Roberts rewrote it.” He suggests (that’s putting it too mildly; he insists) we repeal the whole thing, “and replace it with laws that protect patients and doctors.” I don’t know the specifics of such a law, but, since this is Texas, you can expect that to coincide with free market principles, rather than regulatory interference.

He said we “need judges who will apply the law, not re-write it.” In reference to the Supreme Court ruling to redefine marriage, he said Texas has done three things. First, Texas already has a Religious Freedom Protection Act—similar to the US RFRA law, enacted 15 years ago.

Second, the legislature passed the Pastor Protection Act. This was signed in June, ahead of the SCOTUS ruling, saying that no pastor, priest, rabbi, clergy, or religious leader can be forced to either perform or recognize a “marriage” that goes against their sincere religious belief.

Third, on the day of the Supreme Court decision redefining marriage, Governor Abbott issued an executive order that all offices in the state would protect religious liberties of workers who hold a different belief about marriage, and also all businesses, so no one will be forced to violate their religious beliefs.

Speaking of the Courts, the 5^th Circuit Court erroneously struck down our Voter ID law, even though the US Supreme Court has already upheld virtually identical voter ID laws in other states.  He told us, in case you thought that voter fraud wasn’t an issue, “on the very day a lawyer in Texas was arguing against Voter ID, voter fraud scam indictments came down in south Texas—for using cocaine to buy votes.”

Governor Abbott reminded us that the federal government has an obligation to secure our sovereignty and secure our borders. But they won’t. So, Texas is spending $1 Billion to do it ourselves. We’re increasing personnel, barriers, and air support to secure the border.

Governor Abbott said, “Texas is the model for governing in the United States of America.” He gave several examples. One was that, in response to attacks on our military, including here at Ft. Hood, he has ordered that all on-duty soldiers be armed. Another is taking care of veterans, with particular concern for PTSD. And Texas has now declared February 2^nd as Chris Kyle Day, honoring him in his work to rehabilitate PTSD sufferers.

Texas is exemplary on taxes. The legislature cut the business franchise tax by 25%. Combine that with the property tax cut—raising the homestead exemption, which is Prop 1 on the November ballot—that will be $4 Billion is tax cuts.

We use our money well. We’re leading the nation in improving roads. We kept $10 Billion in our rainy day fund, to address anything that arises.

He proclaimed the Texas rule, loudly: “Don’t Spend All the Money!” and added, “That’s something Washington, DC, needs to learn.”

He made some comparisons between Washington, DC, and Texas:

Washington defines success as more people dependent on government. Texas defines success as more entrepreneurs, more people who get jobs. Texas works to achieve exceptionalism.

Texas is responsible for most of the economic growth in the nation during this president’s administration. With better government in Washington—say, something akin to abiding by the Constitution, and getting out of the way of the free market—Texas would be even better off, and so would the rest of the country.

If you’re into contrast, the Democrat presidential primary debate was held that same evening, just a few hours later. I chose not to assign myself to watch. But I scanned the transcript and heard a few painful lies on radio in the car. I read a pretty good response or two. One, entitled “Two Hours I’ll Never Get Back,” by Derek Hunter, offered this summary:

I don’t know what country those candidates were talking about, but it sounds awful. It has a rigged system that keeps down minorities, women, gays, men, aliens, animals, trees, anything living and most things dead. But somehow this horrible nation favors the rich. I’m not sure how they earn the money the rich steal from them since they’re so severely oppressed, but it all just sounds horrible.

Whoever has been running the place they were speaking about must be some kind of monster for not fixing these egregious injustices.

Fear not, America. Those Democrats running to replace that person promise more of the same, only with different results. There’s a definition of insanity in there somewhere.

The basic theme of the Democratic debate was: “Big government isn’t working, so we need bigger government.”

The debaters agree the biggest security problems we face are not Islamist Terrorism calling for Death to American and acting on that jihad. No, it’s weather. And which of the candidates is most adamant about preventing law-abiding citizens from owning firearms for self-defense. And what we must spend our money on is free college for everyone—even those who drop out of high school (at rates above 50% in “progressive” run cities), and even those who hate school and would be better off finding an alternative career path.

By contrast, again, Governor Abbott mentioned a young man he had recently met who had completed a two-year certification to become a welder. In his first year he earned $130,000. In his second year he earned $140,000. Abbott quipped, “If this governor thing doesn’t work out, at least I know I can get a welding certification and make a living.”

No just a living wage, but up there in the top 10%. And the money goes further here in Texas. To be fully truthful, it’s quite possible that the welder makes a lot less in years like this one, when oil prices are down. But even if that welder is only making $60-$80,000 a year, that’s better than most law graduates are making—after four years of college, three years of law school, and a couple years’ gross salary in student debt.

But that’s not an option Obama and his would-be replacements want young people to know about. He wants them to be beholden to government, go into a fruitless field—maybe ethnic studies—and the stay dependent. That might be the way Democrats fish for voters, but it’s not good for American citizens.

In case you thought integrity, honesty, and reliability might come up—well, that’s not their strong suit.

The little part I heard on radio included this exchange, in response to a call to ignore the email scandal:

COOPER: I know that plays well in this room. But I got to be honest, Governor Chafee, for the record, on the campaign trail, you've said a different thing. You said this is a huge issue. Standing here in front of Secretary Clinton, are you willing to say that to her face?

CHAFEE: Absolutely. We have to repair American credibility after we told the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which he didn't. So there's an issue of American credibility out there. So any time someone is running to be our leader, and a world leader, which the American president is, credibility is an issue out there with the world. And we have repair work to be done. I think we need someone that has the best in ethical standards as our next president. That's how I feel.

COOPER: Secretary Clinton, do you want to respond?

CLINTON: No.

Just plain “No.” Credibility is not worth talking about. I haven’t heard any commentators mention this, but it’s telling. If you’re talking about credibility, you don’t get that from the Democrats, maybe particularly Hillary Clinton, although it’s hard to be less credible than our president oval office occupant.

I don’t like having an anti-Constitution president. I hope we can soon change that. The old, overwarmed options on the Democrat side lead only to greater tyranny and poverty.

The Republican bench is deep. And the contrast is clear.

Just as those who have lived under socialism appreciate the freedom of America, people in America who can experience the difference between places like Texas and places like Chicago or DC appreciate the freedom where it is real.

Nice Problem to Have

Texas has a deep bench. All state level positions for a while now have been held by Republicans. And you can’t get anywhere unless you speak conservative. And if you speak conservative without living it, you’ll be found out.

Add to that, some top positions have been occupied for a while—ever since Governor George W. Bush stepped up (some Texans would say stepped down) to become US President. So there have been people building up their conservative skills in several other positions in this big state, and they’re ready to take the field. It’s a bit like a college football team with a second string better than most teams’ star players—and they’re all calling out, “Put me in, Coach!” (We voters are the coach.) It’s a nice problem to have.

The primary election comes up here in Texas on Tuesday, March 4^th. For you Texans, that means it’s also precinct meeting night, after the polls close. That’s one of the best places to get involved at the grassroots level. You’ll decide what you’d like to see in your state party platform, and you’ll choose delegates for the county/district convention, where those same things will be done for the next level up. (Yes, I did mention this last time around; thank you for asking.) For you people in other states, you probably have a primary coming up very soon as well. Your precinct meetings might be called something else, and they might be held separately from a voting day, but most places and parties have them in some form. So look it up, and then pass the word along to your friends.

Debate held Monday, January 20th, at King Street Patriots

One of the big races is for lieutenant governor, a rather powerful second-in-command position in the state. The slate of candidates for Texas Lieutenant Governor is down to four: incumbent David Dewhurst, Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples, Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, and District 7 State Senator Dan Patrick. In different circumstances (not all against each other), I would probably be happy with any one of them. They’re all conservative, personable, articulate, good-humored, and effective over time with a strong record. They squared off in a debate here in Houston this past Monday, which I got to attend.

Maybe something should be said about why there is such a challenge for a relatively popular and effective incumbent. I’m guessing on this. Back in 2012 Lt. Gov. Dewhurst ran for the US Senate, Kay Bailey Hutchinson’s vacated seat. He lost to Ted Cruz. I think that was a surprise to him at a point in his career when logic said it was time to move up. Failing that, I think it was assumed by many he would run for governor, once Gov. Perry (who has been governor longer than any other in Texas history) announced he would not run again.

But after the confidence loss of the senatorial race, along with the announcement by the popular and effective Attorney General Greg Abbott that he was running for governor, Dewhurst seems to have decided to stay with the safer Lt. Gov. position. It’s just that, by the time he made that decision, there were a number of others who had been planning their futures based on the likelihood of a vacancy in the Lt. Gov. position. And even after it was known Dewhurst was staying, there was a sense that 14 years is more than enough for anyone; get out of the way! So the challengers went ahead as planned.

That Dewhurst senate campaign, in 2012, wasn’t particularly effective: too much attacking a noble and effective person, and too many formal settings, meaning debates and distance from the people. This time around he has surrounded himself with handlers who let him do better what works for him—talk one-on-one with people, in small groups, with individuals, unscripted. He’s charming in person. A couple of months ago he came to our little local tea party meeting. He asked if he could meet with leadership ahead of time, just sit around at a table and talk, for a full hour. Our tea party isn’t exactly full of titles. We have a president, who arranges speakers for our meetings and manages our email group and Facebook page. N one else has an official position. I’m just a faithful, longtime participant, and I’ve taken on some assignments from time to time. But I got invited to that meeting. He spent an hour with four of us, asking us questions about what was important to us, answering whatever he could. He connects very well in that kind of setting. Then he spent another half hour or so speaking to the whole group once they arrived. That was more of a stump speech, but he included Q&A time at the end.

I should mention that this was something like a visiting team disadvantage. Dan Patrick is our state senator. We have known him since he was just the guy on the radio (he owns local station KSEV and did a daily talk show, which he still does as time permits). Most of us decided to support him in his first run, in pre-Tea Party years. He has been much more responsive than his predecessor. My kids and I have met with him in his Austin office during legislative sessions. Without appointment there were a couple of times he stood with us in his foyer and answered anything we were concerned about for twenty minutes or so. He knows his stuff. He was effective this past session heading the education committee, and I’ve noticed as he has become more informed about homeschooling and more in favor of choice for parents. He’s the only candidate who doesn’t currently hold statewide office, but in our little corner of the state—which happens to be one of the largest and most conservative districts—he’s seen as practically heroic.

And it was in this setting that Dewhurst came and sat to talk with us. That was brave. And time-consuming. It was generous of him to come, and I wanted to be open to be persuadable.

He is tall and impressive in person. He seems much more articulate in an intimate setting than in a debate. He doesn’t seem slow of speech or slow of thought when he’s making a personal connection. And he does have a valid point that Texas has done very well, compared to the rest of the country, by moving more conservative over this past decade. And the worse the federal government is for the country, the better Texas looks.

Still, there are some specific issues we conservative Texans are concerned about: border security, low taxes, standing up against federal government intrusions. Federal regulations that prevent people from using their land and resources because there might be some lizard living on those thousands of acres, for example. Filing lawsuits against the federal government, by the dozens, has been the common practice. And while I think that is one direction to go, simply refusing to abide is sometimes what Texas should do. We did that in refusing to set up an Obamacare state exchange, for example. We’re trying to protect our own border, since the federal government fails to do so.

I want to give a fair representation of all of the candidates, including how they did in this debate, covering how they approach the issues. So we’ll do a part II tomorrow.

 

If you’re a regular here, you may have noticed that, after I came back from the holiday break, I’ve been writing just twice a week. I’m spending my other allotted writing time on a related writing project. But some weeks I may just have to write more. We’ll take it as it comes.

Indivisibility

The word “secession” has been tossed about a bit since the election, maybe more here in Texas than in some places. It’s not something to toy with, and I don’t intend to do that. But I hope to add some clarity as to why it shouldn’t be casually considered.

There’s a nice little video spelling out whether Texas can secede; it’s worth viewing for some context.

 

 

With that background, I just want to add this analogy. States join the union of the United States with the intention of permanence—indivisibility—the way most people throughout history have entered marriage. “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”

Divorce is not supposed to happen, but it does. Historically, just cause has been reserved for the big A words: adultery, abandonment, addiction, abuse. Irritation, anger, disappointment, disagreement, and other failures are a difficult part of life, but not just cause for breaking a marriage covenant, if the marriage covenant itself is to continue to have meaning for society.

So, by comparison, a state in the union is meant to be a permanent part of the United States. That covenant should not be broken without just cause. Again, irritation, anger, disappointment, disagreement, and other failures are not just cause. However, there is this contract, the Constitution, that is essentially the marriage document between states and the federal government. If the Constitution is violated—and I think this must be in a clear, incontrovertible, unrepentant violation—such that the just cause for separation listed in the Declaration of Independence become true again, then the contract is by the union, and the state has the moral right to separate.

A marriage that expects one party to remain bound when the other feels free to violate repeatedly various parts of the covenant is nothing more than slavery. A Constitution that binds states to a union that violates many or most of the guarantees of freedom agreed to in the contract is nothing more than slavery. No state has made such an agreement. Our Constitution, unlike those of other countries where a constitution is viewed as merely some nice suggested wording about governing, is the supreme law of the land. Honoring the contract protects us all.

While the contract has been violated, and repeatedly, I don’t know that we are beyond all the other stages of correction—the marriage counseling parts. If we, in the various states, stand up against unjust laws, refuse to allow imposition of actions that break the contract—then we might find that the bully government backs down. There might be a renewed respect from the federal government toward the individual sovereign states. Until those steps (what we might call nullification in some cases) are taken, then we don’t know that dissolution is the only recourse.

Could there come a time when, as the Declaration of Independence says, “it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another”? Yes. Some may argue we are there already. I say first, let’s as states stand up for ourselves and refuse to tolerate abuses of the Constitutional contract. Because, in the way divorce damages the family, divisibility would damage the union. And, without a divorce court to settle the division, that would be settled by whoever is the stronger force in war. In other words, if we’re not yet willing to fight to the death for our independence from the union, it’s not time to talk secession.