Shameless, Anti-Federalist Demagoguery in Suggesting the Possibility of Secession

in

While Texas Governor Rick Perry assumes a populist tone at several Tea Party Rallies in the Lone Star State, even to the point of suggesting to reporters that State secession might happen if there is continued overreach in Washington, it is important to recall that he has been a “friend” of policies favoring amnesty for illegal immigrants, a Trans-Texas Corridor, and an emerging, de facto North American Union. If he has such checkered past on issues of national sovereignty, then his sudden interest in state sovereignty must be seen for what it is: a campaign gimmick and an act of brazen, political demagoguery.

 

Besides recognizing the ploy for what it is, Republicans for the National Interest goes on to bemoan the anti-federalist sentiment being flamed by this Governor. Is he a Republican, or is he just another in a long series of populist, Jacksonian Democrats, who are posturing against national unity in order to take advantage of populist resentments? If we blame the Obama Administration, and properly so, for blaming the American Nation overseas, then should we not also blame those anti-nationalist demagogues, who turn the people against the American Nation with insipid fantasies of nullification and secession? Should we not disdain the so-called “Constitutionalists,” who in fact would destroy the very unity which the Constitution establishes, in favor of what is essentially a return to the Articles of Confederation? There are real dragons to be slain in Washington, including the culture of deficit spending, earmarks, bailouts, and wealth redistribution; but we do not need, nor should we desire, the dismantling of our national unity to achieve these legitimate ends.

 

Thousands Show Up for Dallas “Tea Party;” Rick Perry Fires Up Rallies

By Dave Levinthal and Gromer Jeffers (The Dallas Morning News)

 

For perhaps the only time Wednesday evening, the masses assembled outside Dallas City Hall grew quiet as the man who drew them there, Phillip Dennis, hunched over a wooden lectern, his eyes narrowing.

"We will be called haters, and we are. We are haters of big-spending politicians. We will be called racists, and we are – we are members of the human race," Dennis, a McKinney resident, said as silence turned to roars.

Such moments encapsulated the spirit of area "Tax Day Tea Parties" – unapologetic public rallies that involved Republicans, conservatives and libertarians railing against government expansion, federal taxation and, ostensibly, the government of Democratic President Barack Obama.

At least eight North Texas municipalities, and about 1,000 municipalities nationwide, hosted tea party events.

Police estimated several thousand people attended the Dallas event, with protesters waving yellow "don't tread on me" flags and a variety of signs alternately decrying taxes, panning a federal economic stimulus package and chiding Obama as a socialist/communist.

Becky Hanshaw, wearing a pink papier-maché pig hat atop her head, said she drove 10 hours from McAllen to attend the rally because "it's time to stop the craziness."

"I work too hard to give my money away," said Hanshaw, a dental hygienist. "This is a message to both parties, because I don't believe the Republican Party is conservative enough."

Forty miles away in Fort Worth, about 4,500 people filled LaGrave Field to rally against higher taxes and increased spending in Washington.

They, too, carried signs, including ones that read, "God only asks for 10 percent," and "Born Free, Taxed to Death."

Gov. Rick Perry, wearing jeans and a cap, said the Fort Worth gathering was the largest he attended Wednesday.

He called the crowd a group of patriots, not "right-wing extremists" that critics call them, adding that Washington needs to cut spending and taxes and reread the Constitution.

"They're overturning the rights we had one by one, making choices that would leave our founding fathers scratching their heads," he said.

Perry recalled a line by Sam Houston: "Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression."

Perry, who is in a tough re-election campaign for governor against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, also praised Texas' diverse economy, low taxes and prudent spending.

After his speech, the crowd chanted "Perry, Perry," as he ran into the dugout, ran back out and tipped his cap to the crowd.

Caitlin Upton, a 26-year-old hospitality industry worker from White Settlement, said she was against socialism and nationalized health care.

"I'm a grown woman, and I can take care of myself," she said.

John Smithee carried a sign that read, "Stop Thief."

"They're stealing from my grandbaby," he said.

While calling themselves a "silent majority," the tea party protesters face formidable obstacles to achieving their stated goal of winning back numerous congressional seats during 2010 elections.

Obama retains much of the national popularity that swept him into office during the November elections, his approval ratings having slipped slightly since his inauguration but still hovering in the mid-50s.

A national Gallup poll released earlier this week indicated that 48 percent of Americans believe the amount they pay in federal income taxes is "about right" – one of the highest percentages since the annual poll began in 1956.

And even if the national debt continues to increase as it did during the last decade, Americans' federal, marginal income-tax burden is generally lower in 2009 than it was during most of Ronald Reagan's administration in the 1980s, according to statistics from the Tax Foundation, a Washington-based nonpartisan tax policy organization.

For a cluster of 25 or so Democrats quietly revolting against the tea party in Southlake, the events unsuccessfully mimicked an overwhelming grass-roots mobilization during Obama's campaign.

"They need to redo their base so they don't just have evangelical Christians, and this is what they are doing," said 53-year-old Ann Teeter, pointing to the stage from the back of the 500-person-strong crowd. "We are deep in Republican country where people make more money than anywhere else in the country. They just don't want to pay."

Some Dallas eventgoers acknowledged that left-leaners have outflanked conservatives in their use of technology as a political tool.

But no more, they vowed.

"We're going to show them how to use Facebook; we're going to show them what Twitter is!" said Mark Davis, the event's emcee and a WBAP-AM (820) radio host and Dallas Morning News columnist.

Added Michael Quinn Sullivan, leader of Texans for Fiscal Responsibility: "You and I have to reclaim our brand."

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, right, speaks to the crowd during a 'Don't Mess With Texas' tea party rally on Wednesday outside Austin's city hall.

At one point, Davis piped nationally syndicated conservative columnist Michelle Malkin through the event's audio system via a Blackberry handset.

"If the White House didn't know we existed before, they do today," Malkin said.

Indeed, conservatives in Texas and elsewhere are rising, Dennis said, as he stood beneath a metal tower about 25 feet high, meant to represent the height of the federal tax code if stacked one sheet atop another.

"The conservative sleeping giant is awake. He is awake, and he is hungry," Dennis said. "We will not go gently into socialism – at least not here in Texas."

In Austin earlier Wednesday, Gov. Rick Perry told an anti-tax "tea party" the federal government is "rampaging through the halls of Congress" with big-spending programs and only states' rights can stop it.

"We will not stand our pockets being picked, our children's future being mortgaged, our rights being taken away," the Republican governor told a cheering crowd of 1,000 people outside Austin City Hall.

Perry dismissed characterizations that those attending Wednesday's "tea party" rallies in Texas and around the country are "a bunch of right-wing extremists."

"But if you are, I'm with you," he said.

During the speech, people waved "Don't Tread on Me" flags and signs lampooning the Obama administration's economic stimulus efforts. Some shouted, "Secede!"

Among the signs: "Obama. Liar in Chief" and "I'll Keep My Guns and Money. You Can Keep the Change."

Perry told reporters following his speech that Texans might get so frustrated with the government they would want to secede from the union.

"There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that."

The event came as Perry has stepped up his criticism of political rival Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, suggesting she is part of the problem in Washington.

Perry has criticized federal bailouts and has refused $555 million in unemployment money because of strings attached. He has in recent days asserted states' rights under the 10th Amendment and denounced Washington for overstepping authority.

A spokesman for Hutchison said the senator was in Houston for an event promoting her amendment to make permanent the Texas state sales tax deduction on federal filings.

"The senator is on the front lines in Washington against the Obama administration and their unnecessary spending," said Hutchison campaign manager Rick Wiley.

Before the speech, the Republican governor made the rounds of conservative media on Wednesday. He appeared on Fox News' morning television show and then on Laura Ingraham's radio show, where he compared the anti-tax protests with the battle of the Alamo.

"Washington needs to hear us loud and clear," said Perry, who wore a khaki jacket and a hunting cap. "Cut the spending, cut the taxes, shrink the government. And reread the Constitution."

Texas Republican Chairman Tina Binkiser told the crowd, "We will not bow down to Washington politicians." And conservative radio commentator Rick Green declared, "We are firing the first shots of the 2nd American revolution right here in Texas."

Some in the crowd, which included libertarians and other third-party advocates, said even Perry was not conservative enough.

"This is what politicians do," activist Robert Morrow of Austin said of Perry's appearance. "He's a big-government politician but he's just scared because he has a primary."

Organizers say that Texas is one of the key areas for the parties, with conservative politicians and media personalities giving speeches.

Elsewhere in Texas, Fox News talk-show host Glenn Beck is broadcasting from the Alamo in San Antonio, where rocker Ted Nugent will perform the national anthem.

Organizers are protesting increased spending in the federal economic-stimulus plan and President Barack Obama's multitrillion-dollar budget proposal. Organizers hope to draw enough participants to shake up congressmen who feel vulnerable in next year's elections.

 

 

   

Comments from a Friend Originally Posted on the Internet

Michael Erickson asks some very important questions. I've pulled them out of his essay there to consider here: 1. "If we blame the Obama Administration, and properly so, for blaming the American Nation overseas, then should we not also blame those anti-nationalist demagogues, who turn the people against the American Nation with insipid fantasies of nullification and secession? 2. "Should we not disdain the so-called “Constitutionalists,” who in fact would destroy the very unity which the Constitution establishes, in favor of what is essentially a return to the Articles of Confederation? 3. "There are real dragons to be slain in Washington, including the culture of deficit spending, earmarks, bailouts, and wealth redistribution; but we do not need, nor should we desire, the dismantling of our national unity to achieve these legitimate ends." The reason I've showcased those three questions here is because as i communicate with people, I keep hearing the whisper in the background that if the federal government doesn't shape up, maybe we need to dismantle it, or at least set things up so the states have more autonomy. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing. Just for myself, I believe they had Almighty God on their side, guiding them. You have to admit, for their times, they went above and beyond their own intellect. Maybe it was the power of consensus that raised them to greater levels of thought and action. Whatever it was, the results will stand the test of time, if we allow it. Again, for myself, when I joined the U.S. military in 1959, I raised my right hand and took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from enemies foreign and domestic. I may no longer wear the U.S. Marine Corps uniform I wore when I took that oath, but that oath is still in effect. It stands. It will stand until the day I die. Let's have no talk of destroying national unity to preserve our freedoms. We are a nation of laws. Let all be done legally and above board. You do not defeat your enemy by adopting their despicable tactics. Let us remember who we are. Let us preserve the nation our forefathers fought and died to hand off to us. It may not be easy, but it will be the right thing to do.

Response by Michael Erickson to the Friend

I want to commend you for the very clear and straightforward manner in which you defend our national unity. The Constitution provides the legal framework by which we Americans may live out our lives in accordance with the principles majestically enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence refers to the "people" of the United States, thus calling attention to our national unity and purpose as preexisting any colonial jurisdictions. We are one people, bound by our shared experience in carving out a life for ourselves and our families in the New World, and that is the focus which must prevail. Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence presupposes an independent nation. Without unity, we are sure to lose our sovereignty to the empires of our own time, whether they be international bankers, or Marxists, or United Nations' bureaucrats, just as assuredly as our Founding Fathers would have lost their newly formed independence to the empires of their own time.

A Letter from A Second Friend to Michael Erickson

I've been thinking about this from a Christian perspective. I do not think I can swear allegiance to a Constitution which forbids either monarch or an established church. However, anti-federalism (though one possible world) is a false opposite. I've been reading about the 14th amendment (superficially), and the roadblock for establishment (statewide not nationally) is not the 14th amendment itself but how it's interpreted. Until the 20th century, the 14th amendment was understood by courts to guarantee rights only with respect to 'life and property'. Not until after WWII was it understood to apply to the bill of rights as well. The older interpretation would support a state-by-state basis "establishment". I can provide more information if you're interested or otherwise unfamiliar. I am still polishing my understanding of course. But be careful! I believe at this point in time our last enemy is the anti-federalists. Anti-federalists cannot lead to fascism (by definition); nor do they have any political power or clout to implement their agenda. Frankly, if I had a choice between globalism and anti-federalism, I'd choose the latter. Only God's providence will decide the matter. Constantine was converted, and I imagine the NWO could be too. However, the current trend bucks subsidiarism for autocracy, not to mention enables gross usury. Aren't both Christian sins?

A Second Letter from A Second Friend to Michael Erickson

Although globalists and libertarians can both be open borders and antinomian, I maintain a quantum difference between the two and would develop a strategy accordingly. Both globalists and libertarians make common appeal to the "Constitution". For example, how many Marxist-progressive internationalists today utilize 'Constitutional rights' in order to push their agenda? Isn't gay marriage a "Constitutional" claim? "Undocumented Immigrant rights?" They have many, albeit fallacious, 'Constitutional' arguments-- just as many, if not more so, than our dear libertarians. Perhaps the real problem is not differing views on what the Constitution means, but that we have no consistent hermeneutic in understanding it? Rather than argue what the Constitution means, I'd rather know how and when the hermeneutic was revolutionized. I imagine it was something gradual rather than dramatic. Again, at this point in time anti-federalism is a red herring (my opinion). The problem is growing statism. Federal statism empties local autonomy and levels all eddies of resistance. We are dealing with a totalitarian impulse, and this means nothing independent of central power. That being said, should I be assuming you are politically a "traditionalist”? Probably this word 'tradition' needs definition. It is challenging for any one living in the modern period to explain it. However, Whiggery and Republicanism is surely no friend of tradition. Whiggery is progressive/empirical in worldview and a handmaiden to Marxism. Traditionalists (if consistent) should oppose the twin heads of both classical liberalism and Marxism. But since there is no coherent 'traditionalist' camp, individual traditionalists must settle for second best. Until we acknowledge and express a politic independent of 'Conservatives' and 'Marxists', we will have to hitch our wagon to one camp or the other. However, this is truly defeatest unless done so in a strategic and self-conscious manner. Meanwhile, we should work toward greater coherence and definition of our own party, especially along lines of reconstructing a Christian political-economy. Once this is done, we can articulate short-term reforms, building a base of support and medium to spread traditionalist ideas/critiques. When or if we make headway (a visible traditionalist party), I guarantee not only will 'anti-federalists'/libertarians oppose us but likewise the Whig-nationalists. I guess one needs to define traditionalism. There likely is no definition in terms of political economy, though an established church, monarch (constitutional or not), and agrarianism/subsidarism seem popular.