SAM HOUSTON

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." --Claire Wolfe

Ah Texas.  What a state.

Senator Cornyn represents the state in its finest traditions since the repubs took over the confederacy. And who best to cross-examine this son of a bitch than the son of Mike Wallace:

WALLACE: Let me ask you about health care. If Democrats -- and Robert Gibbs left it wide open -- if Democrats try to pass comprehensive health care reform, perhaps through the parliamentary maneuver, budget maneuver called reconciliation where they would only need 51 votes in the Senate -- what do you think the political repercussions will be?

CORNYN: Well if they try to jam it through like they have so far strictly along partisan lines then I think November 2010 will be a very good month for us. I think we will gain a lot more seats. Because frankly, I think it will show how tone deaf they were to the message that the voters of Massachusetts and across the country were trying to send.

Can you imagine that there is a chance that them dirty dems will bypass the greatest of all rules in the most sacred of houses of legislators the world has ever seen. THE FILIBUSTER; the great rule symbolized by Jimmy Stewart and Strom Thurman.

And those dirty dems would actually attempt some sort of new Majority Rule. What in the hell is this world coming to? (Blesses himself as he ends a sentence in a preposition)

Cornyn supported passage of 2003 tax cuts through reconciliation. In 2003, Cornyn voted for the Senate version of the fiscal 2004 budget resolution that called for additional tax cuts to be considered under reconciliation and for the final version of the 2004 budget resolution. He also voted against an amendment to the Senate version of the budget resolution, proposed by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), that would have stripped reconciliation instructions from the resolution. He subsequently voted for the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 itself. CBO estimated that the bill, as cleared by Congress, "would increase budget deficits ... by $349.7 billion over the 2003-2013 period."

Cornyn supported passage of 2005 tax cuts through reconciliation. In 2005, Cornyn voted for the final version of the fiscal 2005 budget resolution, which also called for tax cuts through reconciliation. He subsequently voted for the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 itself. CBO estimated that the bill, as cleared by Congress and signed by the president, would "reduce federal revenues ... by $69.1 billion over the 2006-2015 period."

Cornyn supported use of reconciliation to pass measure that would have allowed oil drilling in ANWR. Cornyn was one of 51 senators who voted against striking language allowing the reconciliation process to be used to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from the 2006 budget resolution and voted for a reconciliation bill that, as originally introduced in and passed by the Senate, included a provision to open up the refuge to drilling. (The bill as enacted did not contain such a provision.)

http://mediamatters.org/research/201001240005

But if Cornyn represents those fine Texas traditions, GOVERNOR RICK PERRY has got to embody those principles as few have in over a hundred years. One thing Texas governors find sacred in this chaotic world is the right of the state to kill people, legally:

Gov. Rick Perry replaced the chairman and two members of the state's Forensic Science Commission, two days before the commission was to hear evidence that Texas executed an innocent man. The new chairman canceled the hearing, at which an arson expert was to present a report critical of the arson analysis that led to the conviction of the man, Cameron T. Willingham. Mr. Willingham, above, was executed in 2004 after being convicted of setting a 1991 fire in which his three children died. Governor Perry, who was in office at the time of the execution, has expressed confidence in Mr. Willingham's guilt. "This is like the Saturday night massacre," said Barry Scheck, co-director of the Innocence Project, which has been working on the case. "It's like Nixon firing Archibald Cox to avoid turning over the Watergate tapes."  http://ken_ashford.typepad.com/blog/2009/10/governor-perry-rtx-trying-to-bury-the-willingham-case.html

Now once in awhile governments make mistakes. But Rick Perry carries on those great traditions of prior governors like George W. Bush. A mistake once in awhile helps us all wake up. Besides, Cameron was probably guilty of something else anyway and those goddamn commissions just underline the exception that would destroy the rule. And Rick Perry would have none of that.

But if there is one thing about Rick Perry that carries the day, it is his unique sense of history. Treaties are sacred documents.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry's star is rising among a new constituency -- the anti-tax "tea party" crowd -- in the wake of his recent endorsement of a Texas state House resolution affirming the state's sovereignty.

The resolution urges that "all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed."

The Republican governor's public embrace of that language -- a thinly veiled reference toward the conditions set by the Obama administration's financial stimulus package -- and his efforts to reject some of the stimulus funds have made him popular among the big government opponents who attended Wednesday's "tea party" events across the nation.

"I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union," the governor said. "I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state."

Perry's April 9 endorsement failed to generate much media attention until Tuesday, when the widely-read Drudge Report announced in blaring all-caps, "WAKE UP CALL: TEXAS GOV. BACKS RESOLUTION AFFIRMING SOVEREIGNTY." Since then, his political stock has soared.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21295.html

That's right, if there is one thing that old John Wayne would have promoted, it would have been for the abolition of the United States of America.  But on what grounds would such a development take place?

Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that," Perry said. "My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people,   http://blogs.chron.com/texaspolitics/archives/2009/04/perry_says_texa.html

Why what better documentation for secession than treaties.

TOM DELAY backs up Perry with really heavy legal documentation:

Huffpo sent me back to mm for a interview of delay by Matthews in 2009. What was interesting about the interview was that delay maintained there were extant treaties with Texas.  http://www.bing.com/videos/?FORM=MFEVID&publ=2BE19A43-506C-4905-B386-894988BC18EB&crea=STND_MFEVID_core_HuffPo_CustomVidLink_1x1&q=rick+perry+felons&docid=1420678989118

DeLay maintains that there were treaties signed between the Republic of Texas and the U.S.A. prior to admission of Texas into the union in 1845.

And nothing is more sacred to real Texans than it treaties.

Davy Crocket and John Wayne fought the Alamo there against them dirty Mexicanos. They lost the battle but won the war.  And their next step was to form their own nation and begin signing treaties with the Native American Nations within the new nation's borders:

But when did Texas really begin:

The population of Texas in 1821--3,500 white settlers and 20,000 Indians--suggested a conciliatory policy. It was the intention of both the Mexican national government and the state of Coahuila and Texas to award land titles to the civilized tribes. On December 24, 1824, the Shawnee Indians were awarded one square mile of land for each warrior. The Cherokees were less fortunate--toward their dream of making East Texas a Cherokee country they received nothing but promises. Therefore, when Benjamin Edwards was planning his abortive Fredonian Rebellion, he found the Cherokee chiefs John Dunn Hunter and Richard Fieldsqqv agreeable to his plan of dividing Texas between themselves and white men. The tribe repudiated the plan, however, and executed the leaders, but they never received the land titles they desired, in spite of their loyalty to Mexico then and to the Americans later. They pursued a will-of-the-wisp until they were driven from Texas in 1839. http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online//articles/II/bzi1.html

So when the Native Americans outnumbered the European settlers, the Native Americans were rather accommodating and many pacts were signed and honored on both sides.  As time wore on, well...times changed. Circumstances changed. If you read some of these links you will find that although Sam Houston was an honorable man, the governor who succeeded him cared not for some of the treaties. That is what changed in Texas after it became a republic:

Houston also moved to mend fences with the Comanches. In August 1843, a temporary treaty led to a ceasefire between the Comanches and the Texans, and in October the Comanches agreed to meet with Houston and to try to hammer out a treaty similar to the one just concluded at Fort Bird. In 1844, Buffalo Hump and other Comanche leaders signed a treaty at Tehuacana Creek in which they agreed to surrender white captives and cease raiding Texan settlements. In exchange, the Texans would cease military action against the tribe, establish more trading posts, and recognize the boundary between Texas and Comanchería. Comanche allies, including the Wacos, Tawakonis, Kichais, and Wichitas, also agreed to join in the treaty. However, the boundary provision was deleted by the Texas Senate in the final version, which soon prompted a resumption of hostilities.  http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/exhibits/indian/war/page3.html

Mirabeau B. Lamar, who followed Houston as president, had neither experience with nor sympathy for the Indians; he wanted to destroy them or drive them from Texas. The Cherokees, he said, had no just claim to their lands, since the promises of the Mexican government had induced them to make war on the Texans. He further held that the Cherokees should retain no tribal status, since the result would be an alien and absolute government within the bounds of the republic.  http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online//articles/II/bzi1.html

So much for treaties. Just as an aside from the main discussion, it is interesting how Texas repubs treat their Native American population.

There are 32 Texas Representatives in the Congress of the United States. 22 of them are repubs. Just recently there were two bills in the House of Representatives dealing with Native Americans.

HR 1065: White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2009

HR 3264:  Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act

The repubs all voted no to these bills. Except for those repubs who did not bother to show up to vote at all.

Again, so much for treaties. All of a sudden, fascist repubs in Texas think they have a legal argument for secession.

They forget one important event that took place 150 years ago.  THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.

They forget that their great state lost any arguments over treaties and such prior to statehood because THEY LOST THE CIVIL WAR.

In order for the seceding states to reenter the Union in 1865, ALL THE TRAITOROUS STATES HAD TO ENTER INTO NEW AGREEMENTS IN ORDER TO BE REINSTATED AS STATES.

Under the terms of the Reconstruction Acts, new state constitutions were written in the South. By Aug., 1868, six states (Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida) had been readmitted to the Union, having ratified the Fourteenth Amendment as required by the first Reconstruction Act. The four remaining unreconstructed states--Virginia, Mississippi, Texas, and Georgia--were readmitted in 1870 after ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Fifteenth Amendment, which guaranteed the black man's right to vote. http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Readmission+of+states

The Southern States had to also, without qualification affirm loyalty to the Constitution of the United States of America when they were readmitted.

When Texas was readmitted to the Union in 1870, it had to affirm full and complete loyalty to that Constitution WITH NO EXCEPTIONS. No prior treaties were relevant at all to the readmission of Texas into the Union. So the law is clear, right?

Well the Texas House of Representative voted to not recognize the sovereignty of the United States of America and threatened to secede from the fucking union.

And what is established law anyway? I previously demonstrated that Bybee and Yoo rendered their opinions as attorneys that the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution did not apply to prisoners who were never convicted of anything. That's right, it is perfectly all right to torture anyone you want as long as you have not convicted them of a crime.

If arguments like this fly, why can not Texas dredge up legal theories that have ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL BASIS WHATSOEVER?

I mean, they play the arguments of DeLay and Perry on the airwaves.

So much for Texas. That is all I can take right now. And I did not even get into Gonzo, W Bush or all the retards from that state that served in the last administration.

Again there are many millions of wonderful people in Texas who have done wonderful things and continue to do so. Like the ten Democratic Members of the House.

GOOD NIGHT AND  GOOD LUCK.