Texit Is an Action Verb

I’m starting with a personal dental problem story. Bear with me. I’m going to use it as an analogy.

 

The Extraction Question

I had a tooth break last week. Three chunks fell off, one rather large, plus a couple of crumbles. So I went to the dentist. I was hoping for a repair, albeit a likely expensive one, where maybe they could do an inlay or crown.

There wasn’t much pain involved, which was a good sign. But, in examining the tooth, the dentist noticed a weak spot on another part of the tooth that was mighty sensitive to the touch of his tiny metal probe. Not good. He laid out the situation. This tooth has had a fair amount of damage; it’s next to a partial (a removable tooth that replaces a failed root canal from over two decades ago), and that means it’s more susceptible to bacteria and pressure. My hygiene is excellent, but some things are inevitable. And the additional weak spot, close to the nerve, is very concerning.

He could do a temporary fix to both areas, very carefully, and then give it a few months to see if it stabilizes or maybe turns into an abscess. If it goes well, he could follow up with a permanent fix. If that doesn’t work, I lose the tooth—and I'm out time, pain, and expense.

Or he could go ahead with an extraction. That could be followed up by a larger partial—however, that would connect to a further back tooth already under stress. Or we could try an implant—pending a retest of materials I react to, which has made this impossible in the past, but which my current good state of health might allow.

My first wish would be to keep my tooth. I like real. And I like the integrity of real. But I had him write up the various paths forward so I could go home and talk it over with Mr. Spherical Model.

Mr. Spherical Model, who has been through a few implants already, was saying, it’s just going to get worse. You might as well go ahead with the extraction and be done with it. In a few months, you have a new tooth there, and all is well (we hope).

I think that’s the final decision, although I haven’t set the appointment yet.

The thing I’m looking at is that decision point at which you realize a temporary patch job isn’t going to solve long-term issues. At some point you need to extract and rebuild.

 

To Texit or Not to Texit?

That brings us to the topic of the day: Texit. More formally, the Texas Nationalist Movement. But I learned you can use it, not just as a noun, but as a verb. To Texit, or not to Texit? That is our question.

We had an extraordinary Tea Party meeting this past Saturday, with two very good speakers. The room was packed, with a few people needing to stand in the doorway—on a perfect spring Saturday afternoon.

Alan’s Speech

Alan Vera, speaking at Cypress Texas Tea Party
on Saturday, March 27, 2021

Alan Vera was our first speaker, on election integrity, a subject on which he is a national treasure. I consider him and his wife, Colleen, to be friends in my local political circles. When we (the local Tea Party board) were looking for speakers, we hadn’t yet confirmed him, and I went ahead and asked the Texas Independence Movement whether they could send a speaker. (I had heard Daniel Miller in a Crossroads interview.) They said yes—the same day that Alan confirmed. I was concerned about fitting them both in, but it turned out to be serendipitous. They were old friends in this battle.

Alan went ahead and introduced our second speaker, Daniel Miller, by reading what Alan called “the best 90-second speech I ever gave.” It was from the 2016 Republican Party of Texas Convention—the world’s biggest political gathering.

I missed that convention (my only trip ever to London). I apparently missed a lot. There was an hour-long floor debate sparked by this speech, ending in a voice vote badly mismanaged by the chairman, squelching the issue against the obvious will of the body. The issue was on adding the plank on Texas Independence to the state party platform. This is Alan’s speech:

At the center of this motion is a simple idea: Let the people of Texas address the 10th Amendment elephant in the room.

The Republic of Texas became a state through a treaty, with the United States—a CONTRACT.

Embedded in every contract are terms, conditions and covenants, the frequent breach of which undermine the validity of the contract itself.

Many Texans believe that the United States has already grievously breached the agreement.

When this contract was signed, the United States was a constitutional federation of sovereign states—a Republic.

Many believe this is no longer true.

The government of the U.S. once respected states’ rights and the rule of law. Today it tramples states’ rights, and the rule of law is at the bottom of a landfill, covered by the tiny, torn bodies of 60 million murdered babies.

The citizens of the United States have the right to make one bad decision after another. The government of the U.S. apparently has the right to hurl itself toward a cliff of moral and financial ruin.

But the citizens of Texas have the God given right NOT to follow them over that cliff.

My fellow delegates, when the chair calls for the vote on this motion, don’t just vote “aye.” Vote HELL AYE! For our children and grandchildren. For this dream we call Texas.

I have had mixed feelings about Texas independence for a while. I was asking, Should we have some kind of trigger that, if the federal government crosses a line, we automatically put Texas Independence on the ballot? But I couldn’t come up with such a trigger—because it’s easily arguable that any line we could come up with, the federal government has already crossed.

But I love America. I love our Constitution. How could we consider leaving?

Daniel Miller, President of the Texas Nationalist Movement, gave us plenty to think about.

He started with a story about going to the border, to Laredo, the day before. There was supposed to be a rally for people, as he described it, whose message was, “The federal government should fix it, and we should shake our fists at them until they they do.” No one showed. Our turnout in one room in a restaurant on Saturday was half again bigger than that crowd. That is not a message people in Texas want to get behind. Their main speaker, he said, (a speaker from New Zealand now living in Florida and has no say in the matter) spent 20 of his 25 minutes railing against Texit. Then Daniel spoke, and turned them all.

Daniel Miller, President of the Texas Nationalist Movement,
speaking at the Cypress Texas Tea Party, March 27, 2021

The Question to Focus On

There’s one question that brings it all into focus. It is this:

As it stands right now today, if Texas was a free and independent nation, that we had our right of self-government, we had control of our own immigration system and our own borders, we had our own army, we had our own currency, we had our own passports, we had our own embassies overseas, we had our own Olympic team—wouldn’t that be great?—if we were a nation in every single sense of the word, free, independent, self-governing, and the question was put to us on the ballot that we were asked, “Do you want to join the union?”

The room, filled with US Constitution-loving citizens like me, shouted “No!” I didn’t really know to expect that.

Miller was there to persuade anyone not yet persuaded. So he added the “benefits” of joining the union, if we were to do that today:

So let’s just lay out the benefits. I don’t want you to make a snap decision, right? So, let’s talk about near $30 trillion worth of debt that we would inherit overnight. Let’s talk about being crushed under the weight of 180,000 pages of federal laws, rules, and regulations that turns every single one of us pretty much into a federal felon every single day—not a joke [someone said “I know”]. It’s legit. I mean, that’s a benefit, right? Would you want to live under that?

What about the fact that, if you print up all those 180,000 pages of federal laws, rules, and regulations, it’d be taller than the San Jacinto Monument? You want to live under that weight, don’t you?

Or what about the fact that federal regulatory accumulation costs you about 85% of your take-home pay? Or, what about the things that Alan Vera mentioned—about 60 million dead children?

What about the fact that your money is going to be devalued every time that they fire up the printing press?

What about the fact that they’re going to send our sons and daughters overseas to fight in the wars of self-determination for other people but will deny it to us at the drop of a hat? How does that sound? Does that sound like a winning strategy for you guys? Sound like benefits? I don’t think so.

What about this? What about the fact that, as Texans, no matter what decisions we make here on how we want to govern ourselves, they can be overridden at the stroke of a pen by 2 ½ million unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats? How does that sound? I didn’t think so.

This doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me. So, again, I ask you the question: If you had to vote today, would you vote to join the union? [the crowd shouted, “No, no, NO” and “Hell no!”] Well, I think I might have turned some of you guys.

If we, like America’s founders, were to write up a list of usurpations and tyrannies, it would be longer and more egregious than those British monarchy wrongs listed in the US Declaration of Independence—and at least on par with those that led Texas to declare independence from Mexico back in 1836. If you were just to list the executive orders of Joe Biden, each and every one is a breach of contract with the people of Texas—and every other state.

 

It’s Inevitable

Daniel Miller's 2018 book on Texit

Miller has been working on this issue since 1996. It has been a long, hard road. But he says Texas Independence is now an inevitability. The trend has been moving toward it for a while. And with the current occupant of the White House, it’s likely to take a leap.

In 2018 Miller wrote a book, Texit: Why and How Texas will Leave the Union (which I bought a copy of and have started reading—and the intro includes that story of Alan’s speech at the 2016 convention). A lot of the details and difficulties are laid out in there—and on the website TexitNow.org (which redirects to the Texas Nationalist Movement). He mentioned some polling that surprised me, and it’s in the book:

Support for Texas leaving the Union grew from single-digit polling under Clinton to 35 percent during Barack Obama’s first term. The most recent polling in Texas shows that a majority of Republicans, approximately half of independent voters, and around one-third of Democrats support independence (p. 18).

He broke that down a few pages later:

The Research 2000 poll was a question about perceived benefit. The Reuters/IPSOS question was a question of political will. The results again broken down by political affiliation, showed 54 percent of Republicans, 49 percent of independence voters, and 35 percent of Democrats favored an independent Texas….

Support for Texit, on average, polls anywhere from 6 to 10 percentage points higher than those who want to stay in the Union (p. 28).

He told us that the Texas Nationalist Movement is the third largest and most influential political advocacy organization in the state—smaller only than the two main political parties. This is not just a fringe idea.

We talk here at the Spherical Model about the interrelationships of the political, economic, and social spheres, so I noted when Miller said this:

Texit is, at this moment, an inevitability. Not just because we can win a vote, but because there is no way that Texas and Texans can stay in a political, economic, and cultural union with a federal system that believes the way they do.

He colorfully added,

They literally just elected a head of state that went around promoting policies that make Joseph Stalin look like Jimmy Carter.

 

The Process

There’s a pretty complicated process to go through—as Britain experienced in Brexit. But the first step is simply to gauge the will of the people. Put it on the ballot for them to vote on.

The first step toward that was to put it in the Republican Party platform. That was finally accomplished in 2020 (an online convention with no floor debate—but the committees put it in and kept it).

The next step is to put a bill before the legislature. Rep. Kyle Biedermann has filed HB 1359. This simply says the question should be put before the people of Texas. (Ask your representative to sign on as a co-author.)

And the people's yes vote would not suddenly accomplish it; as with Brexit, it would require the legislature to lay out a plan to accomplish it in a given length of time, so all the details can be worked out. The question placed on the ballot would be:

"Should the legislature of the State of Texas submit a plan for leaving the United States of America and establishing an independent republic?"

 

The Battle of San Jacinto, where Texas first won its independence,
painting by Henry McArdle, found here

What About War?

We did have some serious questions—in that room, and that will need to be dealt with to educate the people of Texas between the legislation (and passing a bill its first session is a huge challenge) and the November election. So let’s deal with a couple.

One was, pointing out that the last time Texas tried to leave the union it didn’t go well: If it comes down to it, are we willing to fight our neighbors over this?

Good question. Miller had a pretty good—although not a yes or no—answer: We’re not in the 19^th Century anymore. He said,

We have literally seen an explosion of self-governing independent nation states around the world over the last 75 to 80 years. As a matter of fact, in most instances in recent history, independence has been the solution to years of civil war. Sudan is a perfect example. I think it’s one and a half million lives lost in the Sudanese civil war, and it was not until they decided to separate that the bloodshed ended. So, what we have seen here is a process that has developed over the last 75 to 80 years. And for us, it ultimately needs to get in a referendum.

He added that just over half the US military would side with us. They’re not going to bomb our local Walmart because we—what? We voted the wrong way? They’re going to behave like Khaddafi or North Korea while the world is watching?

They’ll be practical. Economically too. War would interfere with infrastructure and cause misery.

While some people would be happy to see us go, in general they would be against it (I’m thinking because we could set a chain reaction such as the USSR saw at the fall of the Berlin Wall). But there’s not much they could do to stop us.

 

Will We Have Freedom on the Other Side?

A question I got to ask related to whether we could keep our freedom after regaining independence. Our governor, who had certainly convinced me before taking office that he revered our US Constitution, had no qualms about locking us down and ordering us to wear facemasks this year, and then expecting us to praise him for finally setting us free a couple of weeks ago. And we have our cities the way they are now—Democrat-run. And Austin, our capital, Republican leaning but nowhere near as pro-freedom as we ought to have, based on both the US Constitution and our Texas Constitution. How do we know we can preserve our freedoms? Miller answered frankly:

How will government be any better? I’m going to tell you right now, post-Texit is not a utopia. It’s not. There is no guarantee that it’s a utopia. They’re not going to come out here, and suddenly there will never be a pothole again. You may not get your trash picked up one day.

It’s not a utopia. Nor is it a promise of that. But it is a promise that we can have the ability to make it better.

And here’s why. Part of the reason that our state and local officials are allowed to skate by with so much is because the attention of the people is distracted by the federal circus that goes on.

If you want proof, go out into this restaurant, grab a random person, and ask them who the speaker of the House is. They will probably tell you Nancy Pelosi. They probably will not tell you Dade Phelan [Speaker of the Texas House]. And therein lies the problem.

With the attention being drawn to Washington, DC—and rightfully so, because they’re the ones that keep their thumb on us so much. But it allows these folks to skate by. It allows our elected officials to treat elective office in Texas like a triple-A ball club, like tryouts for federal office.

The moment that Texas becomes free and independent again, that stops. There is no higher office than that which they can get in Austin. There is no greater service that they can give than to serve the people of Texas. And without that distraction of Washington, DC, who here would keep a much closer eye on what’s going on in Austin or right here in our own cities?

That’s the benefit of Texit.

 

We Need to Texit

I found Daniel Miller’s presentation of the Texit idea persuasive. As much as I would prefer a whole, intact United States abiding by the US Constitution, I think it’s time we recognize we can’t recover that. All we can do is patch up that cracked tooth to postpone the inevitable.

Extract. Heal. Rebuild. According to the principles that bring us freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

I haven’t been fully ready to say it before. But I’ve now come to the conclusion: We need to Texit.

Remembering the Past to Appreciate What We Have

image from Rep. Valoree Swanson's facebook page

This is the season for Texas history. March 2^, 1836, was the signing of Texas Declaration of independence from Mexico. While that was going on, a tiny force was holding out against an overwhelmingly large Mexican army—for thirteen days—at the Alamo, which finally fell on March 6^th. While things were looking pretty bleak, it was only a little over a month later, April 21^st, at the Battle of San Jacinto, that Texas won its war for independence.

Last Saturday I played music as part of the festivities at Washington-on-the-Brazos, where the Texas Declaration of Independence was signed. That location is about halfway between us and the grandkids, so we talked their parents into bringing them. When I was done playing, we still had some look around time, and took a few photos.

Washington-on-the-Brazos, where Texas declared independence from Mexico

The building, at Washington-on-the-Brazos, where the Texas Declaration of Independence was signed, was a lot more rough frontier than the original US colonists signed their declaration.

re-enactors of the signing

Re-enactors gave us an idea of the people who signed the Texas Declaration. Weather was good, but chilly. It's unpredictable this time of year. The signers in 1836 did it as quickly as they could, to get out of that drafty building.

inside the building where the Texas Declaration was signed

They had a good model for a Declaration of Independence, since they had the US as a model.

Grandddaughter Little PS 1

The kids got to make things: a cornhusk doll, some tooled leather.

demonstrating an old-time potter's wheel

We got to watch a potter at work.

demonstrating an old-time weaving loom

And a weaver.

I’m amazed at the ingenuity of what people figured out to do before electricity. The machines are involved and detailed, but foot-powered.

a protestor

I took a picture of this guy because of his costume and swinging the flag. But then I heard what he was saying. He was located in a protest zone, declaring his First Amendment right to express his views. All good. But his view was that Mexicans had been mistreated here in Texas, and it was their land. I think he stopped short of saying we ought to give it back; I didn't keep listening.

But this is curious. He’s at the place where Texans—including both Spanish-speaking and English-speaking—fought and won a war for independence from Mexico, because their dictator, Santa Anna, had taken away their rights, and all efforts to peacefully seek redress were thwarted. Stephen F. Austin had spent 18 months imprisoned, without charges, just for seeking a peaceful solution. He returned to Texas saying the only option left was war.

This painting of the Battle of San Jacinto
hangs in the Texas Capitol, but I got this image from History.com

After the Battle of San Jacinto, a brief and decisive victory for Texas, which included capturing Santa Anna, Texas was free of that tyranny. It’s the same way the United States became free from the tyranny of the British king following the Revolutionary War. The argument to give Texas back to Mexico makes no more sense than giving back the thirteen original American colonies to Britain. Once a war is fought for freedom, you don’t give your land back just to be nice.

It’s ironic that this man was making his argument in a place made safe for him to make it—because we won freedom from tyranny. And he’s complaining about that?

Our US Constitution is the best document ever created for allowing people to have freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

This is a good time to be alive. Innovation that has come out of a free market over the past couple of centuries is phenomenal. We live in relative peace. People all over the world are now more likely to have their basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing met than at any time in history.

It’s good to take a look at history now and then to help us appreciate how very good things are in the present.

Anniversary Celebrations

Some of our group at the 2016
Texas Indepence Day celebration
at Washington-on-the-Brazos

Today is the 181^st anniversary since Texas declared independence from Mexico, where dictator Santa Ana had thrown out the constitution and trampled the rights of the people. The siege at the Alamo was underway at that moment, holding off forces from February 26 to March 6. Estimates range from 182-257 Texians and Tejanos dead and 600 Mexican soldiers. The length of time the few martyrs held off the entire Mexican army allowed for the declaration of independence to be signed, and for troops to be gathered and inspired to win independence just a month and a half later at the Battle of San Jacinto.

I’ll be celebrating this Saturday at Washington-at-the-Brazos, where the declaration was signed, by playing old-time music with some friends, in pioneer dress. I joined in this event last year, and it was great fun. There are re-enactors and plenty of hands-on activities for families.

a blacksmith at the 2016 celebration
at Washington-on-the-Brazos

The other anniversary is actually Saturday, but I’m celebrating today. The first Spherical Model blog post was March 4, 2011, so I’ve been doing this for six years now.

In case you’re new here, the Spherical Model is an alternative to the right/left model for political ideas. It has the advantage of showing how economic and social ideas interrelate, so we can see what leads to freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

The full story can be found at the website: SphericalModel.com.

I’ve done several shorter versions. A good place to start is The Political World Is Round, from December 29, 2014.

And if you prefer a video version—which is helpful, since the Spherical Model is three-dimensional—that’s available here: https://youtu.be/IGoh5X-CPGA

I once wrote about the behind the scenes of this smallest of all think tanks. I’m repeating that today, with some updating, since more than three years have gone by.

_____________________________________

The Spherical Model is mainly just me, plus those I talk things over with—which happen to include my three adult children, whose interests align neatly with the three spheres, so I refer to my children in the blog as oldest son Political Sphere, second son Economic Sphere, and daughter Social Sphere. All three are married and pursuing lives we can be proud of.

Political Sphere finished law school almost two years ago and has been working as an assistant DA in a smaller county a couple of hours from here. He and Mrs. Political Sphere have two children—Little PS1 and Little PS2, my brilliant and adorable grandchildren. Political Sphere probably has the most influence on the blog, because he calls regularly to talk through ideas with me. He has guest posted a couple of times, and I keep wishing he would do that more often, but life does have a way of getting over-full.

That's me, with Little PS1&2, among the bluebonnets
last spring at Stephen F. Austin State Park

Economic Sphere graduated with a degree in economics, and is nearing the end of his time in the US Army. He has returned from two long deployments to Korea. He and Mrs. Economic Sphere live at an Army base not too far from here. He plans on yet more college afterward, and economics still come up just about every time we talk.

Social Sphere finished college a couple of years ago, and then took their newborn to South America for an internship to help undernourished children. She and Mr. Social Sphere been working in creative pursuits. Little Social Sphere is now two and getting more verbal. He is a delight. She is both an idea generator and a person who makes others feel good—so she has influenced this blog more directly than can be evident to anyone but me.

I refer to myself as Spherical Model. (My actual name shows up on the website, where I own the copyright, if you’re interested enough to search that out.) Sometimes I say “we here at the Spherical Model,” but that’s mainly just me. Here’s a brief bio of me.

I graduated with a degree in English, specializing in writing and editing. I spent my early career years as a writer and editor, mainly in the field of education, but partly in computer documentation—way back when we used Wordperfect 2.0. (I go back far enough to have learned WordStar, in case you’re a word processor historian.) One of those jobs was at a language translation company, where I did Spanish and Portuguese quality assurance—and also Arabic, although all I needed to test there was whether the words showed up in Arabic script or got left in English. Among the education jobs were college level teacher development and support, and high-low curriculum writing (that means for higher grades, for middle school and high school, with low reading ability). I wrote textbooks and workbooks on government and biology.

I spent a lot of years, starting before the birth of Economic Sphere, as a stay-at-home mom. The most intense decade of that was 2000-2010, when we homeschooled, an adventure not to be missed. The Spherical Model idea came out of a homeschool effort to explain political ideas to my children—back in 2004. So my kids were the first to be taught the Spherical Model.

Mr. Spherical Model and I have been married for 35 years and counting. We both graduated from Brigham Young University. That does, in our case, mean that we are Mormons (members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Both of us come from families that go back to early pioneer days. His graduate school was in Indiana; we went back and wandered around the campus during a trip last fall—first time back there. We’ve since lived in northern California, Washington State, and now Texas, where we’ve been homesteading since 1998.

I have other interests as well: music, art, photography, health, cooking, sports, and probably other things that would make for a pleasant grandma-blog, if I didn’t feel compelled to continue what I’m writing here. I’m active in a local tea party, which comes up occasionally in this blog. I’m a precinct chair. I’ve been a district and state delegate a few times. And I frequently write to my representatives. I’ve worked at the polls and have been a poll watcher several times. In other words, while I don’t consider myself a political activist, I do try to get involved to do good where I can.

When I started writing on Defense of Marriage issues, back around 2003, I was talking with Richard Wilkins, who had come to speak to us. I’m a good note taker, and I believe I can take a number of ideas and arrange them in understandable language, so I asked him about writing, even though I had no credentials. He said it was valuable to have the viewpoint of a mother, and I should never be apologetic for that. So I’m acting on faith that what I have to say can be valuable to readers. I hope it is.

I love the Constitution. I love this country and pray for its preservation. And I love civilization. I wish the whole world would choose to live in the way that leads to freedom, prosperity, and thriving civilization.

Now, on to another hopeful year.

Dream Nation

If I were to found a nation from scratch, what would it be like? It would look a great deal like the US Constitution. It would base government on the underlying principle that rights come from God. People will try to take away those rights, and they must be prevented. Government serves that limited purpose. Government should be used to protect our lives, liberty, and property—and the free choice of work to acquire property.

This new nation would have to be a break-off or restart of something existing, since the world is pretty much fully named and occupied now. The words declaring this new nation might include something very much like

WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

And then they would go on to describe why there should be this new government in place of the old:

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

There might follow a list of the grievances—the laws broken by the previous government. And after that list of government’s crimes against the people, the new nation would declare its independence. The signers would invoke their “Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence,” and they would “mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

This is how it was done 240 years ago, at the birth of the United States of America. Appeals to the law that was supposed to guarantee their natural rights had been underway for decades. It appeared every avenue of making things right was exhausted. At the time of the Declaration, war was underway, and continued for several more years. Only Divine Providence could have led to the miraculous victory. Eventually the fledgling nation grew and prospered, and the mother country stopped trying to re-wrest control.

Washington-on-the-Brazos, where the Texas Declaration of
Independence was signed in 1836
photo from Wikipedia

Similarly, in 1836, a section of Mexico listed grievances, and after exhaustive efforts to redress wrongs by appealing to the constitutional law of the nation were attempted and rebuked by the illegitimate dictator, independence was declared. So the Republic of Texas declared independence. A war was already underway, and continued. But with miraculous help from Divine Providence, the dictator-president was defeated in a brief battle at San Jacinto, to the east of present-day Houston.

The fledgling nation struggled, and before many years asked to become one of the United States of America. And has prospered considerably since—far beyond anything imagined by the mother country. As a single state within the US, it is the twelfth largest economy in the world.

So, there’s a pattern. A constitution is in place, promising the people protection of their God-given rights. Then tyrants get power and ignore the law. The free people then try to assert their rights through legal appeals, through reason, through common sense. And their appeals are ignored. Then the people—enough of them—come to see that a complete break is necessary, so that they can form a new nation that doesn’t allow government tyranny.

The tyrant nation doesn’t want to let them go peacefully and attempts to force submission. But, God willing, the free people win their independence.

If the tyrant nation didn’t try get the people to submit through brutal force, the war part of becoming independent would be eliminated.

So, if I were to have what I wanted, it would be to jettison the tyrants from the government—and any portions of the country where the voice of the people prefers the tyrants—and return to the Constitutional laws.

If that is not possible—as it was not with either mother country England for the original thirteen colonies, nor with mother country Mexico for Texas—then there would need to be a declaration of independence.

I am speaking hypothetically only. I am in favor of abiding by the US Constitution, and I don’t think we have yet done everything possible to exhaust the possibility of restoring the Constitution and jettisoning the tyrants.

But, while the United States is considered “indivisible,” that is only while the government guarantees “liberty and justice for all.” Our list of grievances is already as long and serious as was the founders’.

I am where the US founders were between 1760 and 1776, while John Adams was stationed in England making appeals. And I am where Stephen F. Austin was in 1830-1835, before he came out of a dungeon where he was imprisoned for asking that the constitution be followed.

So, hypothetically speaking, since I live in Texas, let’s suppose all avenues of Constitutional restoration have been exhausted. And Texas declares independence from the post-Constitutional Socialist States of America. Let’s further suppose that, because of close proximity to the other states, and the long years of people moving in and out among states, that the Socialist States of America would hesitate to declare war on Texas, but would allow a peaceful secession.

Other states could join—maybe Oklahoma, which is adjacent, but maybe also Utah, which wouldn’t be contiguous, but might prefer joining Texas rather than asserting its independence while surrounded by the Socialist States. There may be others.

So, we have this new nation, formed the way other freedom seekers have formed nations (except peacefully). And now we need to set up the laws.

I think the abandoned US Constitution is an excellent starting point. We would need to form a Constitutional Republic: representative government, by the voice of the people, but with guarantees against majority—or minority—tyranny.

Let’s keep most of it, and then add what we need to clarify and to maintain. We keep power divided into three branches of government. But we would spell out that all national laws must be duly legislated by the bicameral legislative branch and none else. Let’s add that every piece of legislation must deal with a single issue, and that it must identify the power in the Constitution granting authority for that duty.

The executive branch would have no power to issue any such thing as an edict, nor any executive order other than to indicate to workers the procedures for executing the legislated laws. Executive regulatory agencies, which currently have lawmaking, judicial, and punishment self-appointed duties would be entirely eliminated.

As now, the third branch would be the judiciary, which deals with judging according to the law—and has the bonus obligation of identifying whether a duly legislated law is legal according to the ultimate law, the Constitution. But let’s add that a two-thirds majority of the legislative branch could overrule the judiciary. (I’ve heard that suggestion for an Article V Convention to amend the Constitution.) This would prevent the judiciary from asserting illicit lawmaking authority.

We should make it both easier and probable for the legislative branch to impeach (remove from office) the president or vice-president either for attempts at unconstitutional acts or for crimes and corruption. And we could add that the people could also call for impeachment or recall (in a way similar to an Article V convention), if they see that the legislative branch isn’t responding to their appeals.

In addition, the legislative branch—as well as the people—could impeach a justice for failure to abide by the Constitution, or for crimes and corruption.

All would have term limits. The president would have no more than two terms (eight years). Senators would have no more than two terms (twelve years). Representatives would have no more than six terms (twelve years). Justices would have no more than sixteen years. (Length of terms might be negotiable; but this is my daydream, so I get to say.)

We would keep the Bill of Rights—maybe clarifying where courts have tried to interfere with our God-given rights.

Religion would be encouraged, in public and private life. No specific religion or sect would be given preferential treatment by government. But government could do nothing to hinder the free expression—public and private—of religion and religious people. Public prayer would be common at civic gatherings. Such prayers can be done according to the religion of the one praying, and those of differing religions would be expected to be respectful—as others would be to them at other opportunities.

We would also be free to speak opinions—even unpopular opinions—without fear of prosecution. Limits would include defamation, libel, slander, provoking violence, pornography and lewdness. But would not include civil discourse. And, of course, there would be no laws preventing others from saying things a person or group disagrees with, thereby “offending” them.

People clearly have not given up the right to defend themselves, just because they have hired a police force to help protect them. Only criminals would be prevented from owning and using firearms for protection, hunting, sport, or whatever use they see fit.

Families must be protected as the basic unit of society. Marriage would be defined as it has for millennia, as a man and a woman. Other definition powers would be retained locally. Preference would be given to married husband and wife. Other family forms, while permitted, do not expect government or public approval. Parents have the right and responsibility to see to the care, education, and upbringing of their children. Only when parents drastically fail would the law step in to protect the child.

Any power not enumerated in the Constitution would not be granted to the federal government, but would be held by local jurisdictions or the individual people. The local jurisdictions (states, provinces, or whatever they are called in this new nation) would decide when to assert their rights—regardless of what a Supreme Court says. The final arbiter should be the people, not a national government-appointed judiciary, which clearly has a conflict of interest in such cases.

Government’s only economic powers would include standardizing weights and measures, standardizing money, maintaining federal infrastructure, and preventing monopolies. A flat tax of no more than 10% could be imposed more maintaining government purposes of border protection, sovereignty duties, and enumerated government purposes. With government limited to its enumerated powers, there should be little difficulty in maintaining a balanced budget and avoiding debt—but rather than trust on this, the laws should make it mandatory (with possible temporary exceptions, such as natural disasters and attacks on the nation’s soil).

The new nation would secure its borders, and have an orderly, fair, and consistent immigration and naturalization policy.

The national government would refrain from interfering where it is not granted powers, such as in education, charity, environmental regulation, and subsidizing particular industries or market sectors.

We need informed voters committed to maintaining the Constitution. While there should be no financial or racial test for voters, I’m willing to believe we could come up with a test that is part of voter registration—something that proves the voter understands the basic form of government, the limits of government, and who one’s current national elected officials are. And we could have candidates sign an oath showing their understanding of and dedication to the Constitution—with punishments including possibly prison and fines for breaking this oath.

What I dream about is a country well up into the northern hemisphere of the Spherical Model—where we have freedom, prosperity, and civilization. Our original founders did everything right—except prevent us from ignoring the law and slipping southward. But that is not a problem with their system; that is a problem with the people.

So let's start with civilizing people, so that they naturally want--and work for--freedom and prosperity. 

Remembering the Alamo

Today marks the day of the siege on the Alamo, March 6, 1836, when a few dozen Texans held off 5000 Mexican military—long enough for General Sam Houston to gather troops and win the war for independence a month and a half later. It was a sacrifice, but it wasn’t a lost cause. The standoff lasted from February 23 to March 6, some thirteen days by the time the Mexican Army went ahead with the take-no-prisoners attack (there were survivors, about a dozen noncombatants, mainly women and children).

The Alamo (image from Wikipedia)

Texas is a great state for history. We’ve got colorful things worth remembering and retelling. My daughter-in-law (Mrs. Political Sphere) comes from a little town west of Houston that was started by Father of Texas Stephen F. Austin, laid out by Gail Borden (who invented Borden sweetened condensed milk, and also a surveying method he used to make a living). This little town, San Felipe (pronounced by those who live there as San Phillip, or sometimes by others as San Phillipee) was mostly abandoned in what was known as the Runaway Scrape, with citizens freeing before the Mexican Army. A brief battle took place there. They still tell their local stories, even though it wasn’t a major part of the Texas war for independence.

Stephen F. Austin
(image from Wikipedia)

Mexico had a constitution, a written law that guaranteed citizens certain rights. But Santa Anna had taken over as dictator, disregarding the limitations in the law. Stephen F. Austin had gone to Mexico’s capitol to talk through the issues, and form a new state where the laws would be respected. Rather than having the opportunity to voice his complaints, representing his people, and work toward solutions, Austin was labeled an insurrectionist, placed in a dungeon too small to stand or stretch out, where he was held for eight months, being released in August 1835. At this point he returned to find the colonists on the verge of rebellion, and he let them know he now believed they were beyond negotiating with the tyranny of Santa Anna. It was time to fight for their freedom from the tyranny of Mexico.

The bad treatment in the prison deteriorated his health, leading to his death following a bad cold, in December 1836, just a half a year after Texas won independence.

Back to the Alamo. During the rebellion, the war for independence, Presidente Santa Anna moved his troops from city to city to quell the insurrection. The Alamo was an old mission, outside San Antonio (it’s right in the middle of downtown San Antonio today, since the city has grown around it), that could be used as a fortress. Colonel William B. Travis, assigned to lead the troops there, knew he couldn’t hold off the huge Mexican Army. But he also knew that he needed to detain that army as long as possible.

Just four days earlier (March 2, 1836, at Washington-on-the-Brazos, a long two-day’s horse ride from the Alamo) Texas had signed its Declaration of Independence from Mexico. And General Sam Houston was moving through the settlers to build up an army from among the Texians (the settlers that had immigrated from the United States) and the Tejanos (the ethnic Mexicans living in that region). He needed as much time as he could get.

Texas Declaration of Independence
(image from Wikipedia)

A Facebook friend quoted today a historical retelling of the Alamo from Bill Bennett’s American Patriot's Almanac, that I’d like to re-post here:

Storm winds of tyranny blew across Texas in early 1836. In those days the region was a part of Mexico, where General Santa Anna had seized power and made himself dictator. Texans weren’t willing to submit to his rule, so Santa Anna marched north with an army.

In San Antonio a small band gathered to make their stand at the Alamo, an old Spanish mission turned into a fort. They were tough characters, men who had settled a wild frontier. With them was the famous Davy Crockett from Tennessee.

The Mexican army arrived and demanded the Alamo’s surrender. The Texans answered with a cannon shot. Santa Anna ordered a red flag raised, a signal meaning “We will take no prisoners.”

Colonel William Travis, commander of the Alamo, dispatched messengers bearing appeals for reinforcements. “Our flag still waves proudly from the walls,” he wrote. “I shall never surrender nor retreat . . . Victory or death!”

Only 32 men made their way through the enemy lines to join the Texans at the Alamo. That brought the number of defenders to about 189. The Mexican army, meanwhile, swelled to perhaps 5,000.

Legend says that Travis called his men together, drew a line in the dust with his sword, and announced that those who wanted to stay and fight should step over the line. Every man but one crossed over.

The attack came early the next morning, on March 6, 1836. For a while, the Texans managed to hold the Mexican army back, but soon Santa Anna’s soldiers swarmed over the walls. All of the Alamo’s defenders were killed.

The Texans weren’t finished. On April 21, troops commanded by Sam Houston attacked and broke Santa Anna’s army. “Remember the Alamo!” was their battle cry—a cry that still reminds Americans of unyielding courage and sacrifice for freedom.

 

That April 21^st defeat, at San Jacinto, just east of present-day Houston, took only 18 minutes. Houston comparatively small army took the Mexican troops by surprise. The tyrant Santa Ana was among the captives, dressed as just one of the men, trying to avoid notice, ignominious and cowardly. When discovered, he was forced by Sam Houston to officially declare Texas’s victory in its war for independence, and then he was allowed to return to Mexico to continue his cowardly tyranny there.

It takes bravery and sacrifice to secure liberty. And tyrants are generally found to be cowards and bullies when confronted with bravery. That’s something to remember in the never-ending battle between tyranny and freedom.