Response to Texas Secession Requests Settles Nothing

I found the White House official response to the Petition on its website requesting that the state of Texas be allowed to peacefully secede rather comical.

Invoking Lincoln, as if to lend credence to its dogmatic denial, settles nothing.

First of all however, before I get to that, I wish to state that no state need ask "permission" to secede. Secession in and of itself, is the last resort of free people whose unalienable rights are no longer respected or protected by a runamok central government - Such a government which regards itself as superior to any document limiting what it can or cannot do according to that founding document. Take away that right, and no people can be said to be truly free for what you have in effect created is a FORCED/INVOLUNTARY UNION from which no man or woman can ever hope to be separated, irregardless of any future circumstances or chain of events which might arise in the future.

Does any rational individual believe that under such circumstances, those who are the oppressors would graciously accede to any "request" from the beleagured citizens to depart? Hearkening back to the time of Israel in its bondage in Egypt, , one might just as well have expected Pharoah whom when COMMANDED, not requested by the Most High, to let His oppressed people go free, stubbornly refused.

The response to any "response" from the central authority is taken directly from the founding document of these United States.

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.

Appealing to Lincoln and his warped vision of such a thing as a "perpetual union", settles nothing in the matter. The South was subjected by force and brought back into the union against its wishes. We might as well argue that had the British defeated Washington's army at Yorktown and captured his officers thus ending the war, that the attempt by the colonists to "declare their Independence" and "secede" from British authority was also null and void. Force only settles one thing - that a governing power bent of crushing the unalienable rights of its citizens can and will succeed given enough force of arms even thought it may be resisted.

The whole idea of a Constitution creating a system of Federalism with limited power to the Central Authority and checks and balances upon the three, co-equal branches of government, was to prevent the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY. The Founders well understood that a purely democratic system of government would eventually fail to secure liberty since the ultimate outcome of such a system would be the permanent subjection of the rights of the minority to the whim of the majority.

Unalienable rights are God-given, meaning that they cannot be infringed upon by government. Indeed, government exists only to SECURE or PROTECT AND MAKE CERTAIN, these rights are not violated or transgressed.

Here then is the main difference between those on the left and those on the right. The left wishes to create their version of utopia here on earth. The right believes that while a well-ordered and peaceful society is the ultimate purpose of any government, here, in a fallen and sin-corrupted world, no utopia is possible. Given the nature of men, steps must be taken to ensure that they never hold sufficient, unbridled power with which they can usurp these unalienable rights.

The left, in its attempt to create its paradise, takes whatever steps it deems necessary to bring it about, EVEN IF IT MEANS PUSHING ASIDE GOD-GIVEN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. You see, a large part of the problem with the left is that many are either agnostic or are true secularists. (As an aside - there are some who are agnostic who still understand something about human nature and thus liberty and the need to preserve it from governmental overreach but such are few and far between.)

This poses an immediate clash with those of us who believe in a God, a Higher, Supreme Power, to which all men must answer and who is the bestower of certain rights. If there is no God, no Hgher Power, then the very idea of unalienable rights derived from Him becomes an archaic, utterly meaningless concept.

I will go so far as to declare that many of the left see the state in the role of God, the Higher Power, to which all must submit and that it and it alone is that which dispenses "rights" to the citizens or subjects. It may thus grant or withdraw any such rights that it grants depending on that which it aims to achieve. This is why you will see constant attacks on the Constitution by those who hold it up to ridicule as outdated or insufficient to deal with our modern times. The simple fact is that it stands as an obstruction to their grandiose schemes.

What happens however when the check on power which the Founders built into the Constitution is pushed to the very edge or even disregarded? What are free men to do when their own central government begins to whittle away at their unalienable rights all in the name of achieving some leftist nirvana (income equality, equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity, reduction of violence, free medical care, etc.)? What are they do to if their voices are no longer heard nor represented in the halls of power in a far away district? What course can they take if they find themselves in the MINORITY now subject to the whims of a ruthless majority which feels no restraint upon its quixotic quest for an earthly paradise?

The answer should be as "SELF EVIDENT" as it was to the author of the Declaration of Independence who deliberately chose those words to describe a sacred truth - namely - they have a right, nay a duty, to cast off such a government, separating themselves from it and pursue that system of government which can best secure those unalienable rights.

This is what secession means and why those in power will always detest, despise and condemn it. I have said it before and will say it again - the FORCED UNION of Thomas Jefferson and Karl Marx is doomed to failure. One side will eventually vanguish the other as there is no common ground between them both. It is best to let them both peacefully go their separate ways.