Well, well. April 15 was a day when the nuttier wing of the Republican party yet again managed to embarrass the rest of the GOP by holding a protest with the same name as a sexual practice (thus issuing an open invitation for mockery) and letting a few vile hatemongers come out and play to the cameras. Yet somehow on this day, Gov. Rick Perry managed to distinguish himself by hinting that Texas might secede from the United States.

Yeah! For too long Republicans from Alaska and Georgia have been the party’s standard bearers for prejudice, paranoia, and plain old idiocy. It’s time that Texas took back its rightful spot. Of course, the unhinged Michele Bachmann of Minnesota is always a threat to say something crazier than anybody dares to think, but it’s good to see Perry show some initiative in stupidity, just like the guy who preceded him in the governor’s chair.

Seriously, Gov. Perry is a disgrace. Nobody thinks he’s serious about secession. He just said that to win some votes toward his re-election. But if he needs to pander to these wingnuts to stay in power, what does that say about him? And why hasn’t his Republican party primary opponent Kay Bailey Hutchison jumped on this? She’s not afraid of offending the black-helicopter crowd, is she? Will any GOP politician show some backbone? And if Texas did secede, would Perry even win an election against Chuck Norris?

State Fair of TX_OnlineAds_300x250_General

As you might predict, the late-night comics are having a field day with this. My favorite line was one of Jay Leno’s: “The good news is, if Texas does secede, we can invade it for the oil.”


  1. What, No Comments?

    Here is the whole thread which I saved along with my last post.

    Leave it up to a private citizen to keep the press’ archives.

    Packing My Bags Now sez (on 4/17/2009 1:45:43 PM):
    Best I can tell from the blogosphere, the general sentiment across the rest of the country is “This time, let them go. Please.”
    Texas would immediately take its rightful place among other third-world countries with filthy air, polluted water, no social services, vigilante justice, and sharia law. All those Supreme Court rulings which have invalidated Texas’s racist, homophobic, and sexist laws would have no more effect, and the racist, homophobic, and sexist laws (which, to this day, remain on the books) would be enforceable again.
    What’s not to like?
    Anonymous sez (on 4/17/2009 1:53:20 PM):
    Wow, I keep giving FW Weekly the benefit of the doubt and ignore most of the far left whinging that spews from this publication, but this Governor Perry slam really makes you look ignorant and ill-informed.
    This, and future Tea Party gatherings, is about one thing: The Constitution of the United States and the push to preserve it!
    Tea Parties are NOT anti-tax as so many want to report. Responsible spending of our existing taxes is the plea.
    The next Tea Party is set for July 4th and will continue to bring a genuine grass roots movement together so people, ALL PEOPLE, can come together to support what makes this country work: INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM! I hope you have the stomach to take a break from complaining and join the crowds.

    I’m sure I’ll still thumb through this ’desperately seeking attention’ magazine, but only when it’s staring at me while I wait for a drink or sandwich.
    Me sez (on 4/17/2009 4:39:21 PM):
    Golly, Anonymous, but where have you all been for the past thirty years, ever since Reagan started ramping up the deficit and big government? Funny, but I don’t remember any tea bagging when W led us into two wars (off-budget), instituted an unfunded Medicare drug benefit, shredded the Fourth Amendment, and announced just which constitutionally-enacted laws he would enforce and which he wouldn’t. I DO remember something about trying to amend the Constitution to take away, for the first time, some people’s civil rights. But who knows, maybe your tea parties and a new Democratic president and Congressional majority just happened to come along at the same time by coincidence.
    And maybe there’s a Santa Claus.
    The tea baggers have a message all right. The message is they massively lost the most recent national election and they don’t like it. Fraid you’ll just have to get over it. Or you all can just revert to your previous modi operandi and start blowing up federal buildings.
    KLin sez (on 4/17/2009 5:42:21 PM):
    Now, now, there’s no need for that. Me has a good point (wow, that really looks ungrammatical) that these protesters weren’t anywhere to be seen during the Bush years. And I’m totally with the anonymous poster in wanting responsible expenditures of tax revenue. But where does the Constitution enter into this, anonymous? You can argue that what President Obama is doing is a mistake, you can argue that his policies will be bad for the economy, but what basis do you have for saying that what he’s doing is somehow unconstitutional?

    And while responsible government spending is something everyone should be working toward, that’s not the message I saw coming out of the rallies. I saw a lot of free-floating anger from all these splinter groups: the paranoid section of the gun lobby, the people who want to abolish the IRS, the extremists in the anti-immigration movement, the folks obsessing over Obama’s birth certificate, and yes, a few hard-core racists. I know that most Republicans aren’t like this, and I dare say that whoever you are, Anonymous, you aren’t one of those pinheads. A big protest like this tends to get the kooks to crawl out of their holes. But the thing is, when you hang out with folks like that, people start to get the idea that you’re one of them. That’s the Republican party’s problem right now. (By the way, if this protest really was a “grassroots” thing, why was Fox News shilling for it nonstop and putting their name on the events? I know what it looks like when a megacorporation uses a few disenchanted people to promote itself. This is what it looks like.)

    Even if the teabag crowd had rallied together behind a single coherent message, Gov. Perry’s rhetoric still would have been excessive. He was trying to curry favor with those few diehards in the crowd who wish (for whatever reason) that Texas really would secede from the United States. Why would you want the votes of people like that? (Do those people even vote in elections, or does that go against their beliefs?) What kind of politician reaches out to them? That was the point of my post.

    chinese boomerang sez (on 4/17/2009 8:18:57 PM):
    KLin says –

    “But the thing is, when you hang out with folks like that, people start to get the idea that you’re one of them. That’s the Republican party’s problem right now.”

    So from this logic people should quite naturally “start” to get the idea that , Obama, by hanging out with Jeramiah Wright / William Ayers, is one of them. Never mind that he threw his pastor of 20 years – the man he described as his “spiritual mentor” – under the bus. It’s already a given that Obama’s words don’t need to match his actions when he doesn’t want them to. (I’ll let you list the examples … If you can’t list at least five in one minute do so than you’re as dishonest as Obama.)

    Come on now KLin, admit it, you’re practicing the politics of association in the instance of people meeting randomly at rallies (you even say “A big protest like this tends to get the kooks to crawl out of their holes.” But Obama …. he specifically sought out the racist Wright and the bomber of Federal buildings, Ayers. Why then do you not practice the politics of association in one instance and not the other?

    Let’s see you prove you’re not a hypocrite! If you can’t do it the rest of your writings on these matters don’t ….. matter.
    chinese boomerang sez (on 4/17/2009 9:47:20 PM):
    KLin also says in reference to Kay Bailey Hutchison

    “She’s not afraid of offending the black-helicopter crowd, is she?”

    Oh, but wait …. remember “the vast right wing conspiracy?” Who said that? Wouldn’t that be someone noone would want to pay attention to?

    Well, that person is now our Secretary Of State.

    KLin, do you think a person who held such an insane conspiracy theory should be our Secretary Of State? This is important because it goes to your credibility.
    KLin sez (on 4/18/2009 10:31:50 AM):
    And still no one cares to actually defend Rick Perry. Or his statements. Or the cause of Texas seceding. Well, that’s good.
    KLin sez (on 4/18/2009 10:48:10 AM):
    I’m somewhat confused by your argument, boomerang. First you blast Obama for his association with Jeremiah Wright, then you knock him for throwing him under the bus, in your words. It seems like the guy can’t win with you. Don’t you think you’re being a tad unfair?
    KLin sez (on 4/18/2009 11:02:19 AM):
    I’m even more confused by your comments about Hillary Clinton, boomerang. What does her attitude toward right-wingers have to do with A) my credibility? B) Rick Perry and the teabag protests? C) her ability to be Secretary of State, a job where she’s dealing with foreign leaders and not domestic issues?
    chinese boomerang sez (on 4/18/2009 2:24:05 PM):

    You start out by saying the Tea Parties were thrown by ” the nuttier wing of the Republican party.”

    But of course that’s just your opinion.

    You then admit about Perry that “Nobody thinks he’s serious about secession.”

    So I say, OK then, he doesn’t need to be defended does he?

    But you wonder if he needs to pander to “the wingnuts.” And you wonder if KBH is afraid of the “Black Helicopter Crowd.”

    You also tell anonymous that “when you hang out with folks like that” the people you consider nutty “people start to get the idea that you’re one of them.”

    Your whole notion is to disparage the people who attented the Tea Parties as nuts / and conspiracy theorists …. something you can’t even come close to proving and then to deride Perry for pandering to them.

    But, what I am telling you is this, and you know it’s true. Obama sought out just those same kind of nuts – real ones, not just a few stragglers who he happened to be in close proximity to at some rally held on one day. He sought them out for advice, spiritual guidance, street cred etc. And he listened to, learned from them and proudly proclaimed their theories. And then, he doesn’t just pander to conspiracy theorists but actually selects a Secretary of State who holds to a conspiracy theory as crazy as the one you ascribe to people who, again, just happen to show up at an anti-confiscatory tax rally.

    In the Liberal movement those nuts are hailed as leaders, professors in good standing / sought after preachers etc. when they are really no more than racists, bombers of federal buildings, hate mongers and sexual predators. Yes, on your side nuts fail upawards, the Wrights / Alinskys / Ayers / Bill Clintons ….

    From where I see it KLin you’re a hypocrite. You have a double standard. You denounce the worst on one side while making them your very leaders on your side.
    Jack sez (on 4/18/2009 10:39:22 PM):
    Here, point blank. The Texas Tea Party crowd are nut jobs. It’s one thing to ask for financial accountability. It’s another to rant and rave that the US Government is a malevolent force bent on oppression. The only way this argument makes any sense is against the backdrop of the Civil War, Civil Rights and School Integration. “States Rights” is code for “We hate black people”. I’ve been saying for years. its a strong subtext to this whole group of anti-tax, anti-federal government types.

    What I think is so funny is that in the 06 election 64% of the population of Texas voted against Perry (myself included). He’s probably not going to win re-election in 2010 and I think he knows this. Why he’s pandering to the Republic of Texas morons is beyond me. It’s part of this strategy of pandering to “the base”. It’s why Sarah Palin was nominated for the VP slot. But the Republican “Base” is already a minority, even in texas (45% of our population voted democratic. Every major city, except for surprise surprise Fort Worth, voted for Obama.)

    Chinese boomerang, perhaps “vast rightwing conspiracy” is an overshot, but organized movement conservatism definitely conspired to bring the Clintons down using anything they could.
    Obama repudiated Jeremiah Wright, is the difference. Rick Perry is trying to actively curry favor with people that will do anything to return to White Protestant Hegemony once again.
    Feel free to ask questions, this post is written very telegraphically and can be unpacked, if need be.
    KLin sez (on 4/19/2009 10:32:58 AM):
    Surely you give me too much credit, boomerang. Much as I’d like to lay claim to personally making Barack Obama president, as you say in your comment, I can’t. It was the 69.46 million Americans who voted for him along with me who did that.

    Seriously, boomerang, you seem awfully sure of what I supposedly know to be true. If I knew you a little better, I might say you were presumptuous. If you want to talk double standards, here’s one: When liberals were protesting the Bush administration, various conservatives had no trouble depicting them as loonies and troublemakers who hated America. But now that it’s conservatives doing the protesting, those same pundits are calling the protesters “patriots.” Funny how that works. Here’s a bonus double standard: The government’s bailouts of various private-sector businesses weren’t Obama’s idea. They were first advanced by the Bush administration in the fall of 2008. Where were the conservative protesters back then? Boomerang, if you have a specific problem with the bailouts or with some other facet of Obama’s governance of the nation in these past three months, I’d be happy to hear it. But I’m starting to think you simply don’t like the man. You’re well within your rights to not like him, but you need more before you go off accusing him of being some sort of weird radical wacko, because I see no evidence that he’s running the country like one. Judging by his approval ratings, I’ve got lots of company there.

    And Rick Perry does need defending. (Thanks, Jack, for bringing the discussion back on topic. You made some great points.) If his statement wasn’t intended to pander to the secessionist crazies, then what else was it for? What other possible reason could he have had to say that?

    As for Sen. Hutchison, her silence is understandable from the viewpoint of a politician who sees her opponent is embarrassing himself and wants the spotlight kept on him while he’s doing it. Still, with the governor’s comments this far beyond the pale, she wouldn’t risk much by saying that he’s wrong (or at least that his rhetoric was badly chosen), and staking out a moderate position would help her in the primary. At some point she needs to address what Perry said, especially if she’s running against him. It’ll be really weird if she doesn’t.
    george bush sez (on 4/19/2009 5:42:52 PM):
    republican texans that want to seced from the union, I guess treason runs in your blood you traitors that want to seced just remeber you comitted treason during the civil war and got your a– kick, we will put a boot in your a– again its the american way.
    george bush sez (on 4/19/2009 5:50:07 PM):
    Boy! all those texas republicans ranchers, farmers that are receving government welfare money (subsidies) are sure worried that there welfare checks might get cut off, this republicans are the biggest users of government welfare money
    Hoosier Daddy sez (on 4/20/2009 8:28:21 AM):
    I just want to know — what is the sexual definition of “tea bagging”?
    KLin sez (on 4/20/2009 9:48:23 AM):
    There’s a definition of it on
    chinese boomerang sez (on 4/20/2009 11:23:21 AM):
    Jack says – “States Rights” is code for “We hate black people”.

    Of course it’s not. “States Rights” is the subject of the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. And please don’t mention any non-sense about Bush shredding the fourth amendment. Tapping phone calls from foriegn terrorists into the U.S. most definitely falls into “reasonable search.” If you have examples of abuse (other then the technical errors made under the law during both the Obama and Bush eras) then please list them.

    Jack, remember it’s the Democratic Party that held to slavery, actually tried to secede through war and then for the next 100 years enacted “Jim Crow” laws to enforce discrimination. So, if the term “States Rights” is tainted for you then you can thank the Democratic party for that. Just look at how much less racist the south is since the Republicans gained control of that part of the country.

    KLin says –

    “Surely you give me too much credit, boomerang.”

    Actually no, I don’t give you any credit. Besides failing to disprove your hypocrysy (you even reinforce it) you are now showing your massive ignorance (as well as bias in your reading.)

    Many Repbuplicans George Will, Thomas Sowell, ME!, along with many (but not enough) Republican congressmen, and many others spoke up against the first TARP bill in the fall. How can you possibly not know that? Astounding really.

    Also, you say –

    “When liberals were protesting the Bush administration, various conservatives had no trouble depicting them as loonies and troublemakers who hated America.”

    But I’m not talking to various liberals, I’m talking to YOU. YOU, Kristian Lin, are the one depicting attendees of the Tea Parties as members of the “Black Helicopter Crowd,” “Wingnuts,” and “Hatemongers.” You are merely likening yourself to those very “conservatives” you mention. So, you’re are calling yourself a hypocrite. Perfect! I’ve actually succedded in getting you to convict yourself! When Jack (above) says that “We hate black people” is “a strong subtext to this whole group of anti-tax, anti-federal government types.” you let it slip by. Look at the ease with which he hints at the notion that the Tea Party types are racists.

    Here is some real subtext –

    It was Clinton’s “doubling down” of the CRA and Janet Reno’s strong arming of banks that led to those banks making huge amounts of bad loans to people who could never afford to pay them back. The banks packaged up and got rid of as many of the loans as they could. Guess who took ’em. Yes, those bastions of Liberalism Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac run by Democrats Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick. They said to the banks – “Don’t worry, if it all goes bad the tax payer will be on the hook, not you or us.” Bush went along with all this because he believed in home ownership. But when it was revealed that Raines was cooking the books and that Fannie and Freddie were in deep deep trouble he saw that he had been had. That’s when the Republicans (Bush and McCain) brought in regulators to look into things. Democrats would have none of it even after Raines had to give back some of his 95 million in salary. (He could have easily gone to jail.) Bush and McCain tried to pass a bill reigning all this in and the Democrats killed it. When Fannie and Freddie failed it took down AIG, then many others. Remember the top three recipeints of donations made from Freddie / Fannie / and AIG are Obama, Clinton, Dodd, (along with Schumer, Waters, Frank et al.)

    KLin, if you do not know all of what I just wrote in the last paragraph then you are ignorant. It’s your job to know these things. If you do know it then you are malicious in your backing of such practices.

    Now, Bush scrambled and wrong headedly went along with the bailout menrtality. And we are where we are. In his first budget Obama will triple Bush’s single year defecit and CBO says Obama’s defecits for the next 8 years are unsustainable given rosy economic predictions and dangerous given not so rosy forcasts.

    Remember KLin, one of Janet Reno / Bill Clinton’s / ACORN’s tactics when banks smartly tried to refuse being forced to make bad loans was to “hint” racism on the part of the banks.

    Yes KLin, you are a hypocrite and ignorant. Are you malicious too? Do you think protesters of the sorts of things which I just wrote about are racists, hatemongers, members of “the black helicopter crowd”? Because they are not. But, I remind you again, Obama seeks out just those hate mongers, racists, sexual predators etc. on your side. He espouse proudly their views.

    If you can’t see that your blind. Do you know what causes blindness KLin? Hate.

    Take a look in the mirror KLin.
    otter sez (on 4/20/2009 12:48:07 PM):
    K Lin’s post shows how these Weekly writers are really closet liberals and try to pass themselves off as fair and impartial.
    KLin sez (on 4/20/2009 2:00:09 PM):
    Good God, boomerang. You think Obama’s voters are racists, hatemongers, and sexual predators? All 69.46 million of them? You accuse me of making blanket assertions, and then you go off and say something like that? You’re over the line, sir.

    The thing is, you’ve got some decent points about the bailouts. You could have made them without personally insulting me (which I don’t mind so much) or our president (which I imagine he minds even less). You probably would have found a more sympathetic audience if you had.

    Go back and look at my original post. I never said the tea parties were thrown by the wingnuts. I never said Republicans were wingnuts. In fact, I said the opposite, taking pains to distinguish mainstream Republican thinking from the extremists who were at the tea parties calling Obama a fascist and saying he was going to enslave white people. It was precisely those extremists who embarrassed the Republicans. They hijacked the media’s attention, which is what tends to happen at these big protests because nutty people make for good TV. The Republicans have an image problem that they’re beholden to those fringe-dwellers, and the sight of those screamers on TV didn’t do the party any favors. Gov. Perry didn’t need to suck up to the wackier elements in the crowd, but he chose to do that. I pointed that out, and made a few jokes about it. You read my post and imagined I was tarring all Republicans with the same brush. Well, I wasn’t. And now that you’ve called Obama’s voters sexual predators and accused him of standing with them (which you have absolutely no evidence for), you’re guilty of exactly what you accused me of, boomerang. It’s like your accusation boomeranged on you. At least you’ve lived up to your screen name.
    KLin sez (on 4/20/2009 2:42:50 PM):
    Hey otter, I can’t speak for my fellow Weeklians, but since I’m not a reporter on national affairs, I can be as opinionated on that subject as I want to be. I’m on the liberal side of the dial, and I’m not in the closet about it. I’m out and proud.
    marfa lite 100s sez (on 4/20/2009 4:31:05 PM):
    FYI some FWWeekly readers aren’t Republicans OR Democrats, and didn’t vote for either major party’s candidate in this past election. Some of us out here think big-party politics is part of the problem, and wish .. possibly against hope .. that there were enough of us to make some REAL change.

    This whole Tea Party-nutjob-biased media- left hates right hates left-loney liberal-callous conservative-Socialist-Facist bull crap is promulgated by the major parties with the express purpose of dividing up the public into easily controlled voting blocks. If they can convince 50.1% of the public that the other 49.9% are Bad For America ™ then they get the power. Doesn’t matter if it is true or not. And hasn’t for years (at least since 1980 in my adult voting experience).
    chinese boomerang sez (on 4/20/2009 4:44:25 PM):
    Lame KLin,

    You know exactly what I meant –

    Sexual Predators – Bill Clinton / Barney Frank (who ran a prostitution rackett out of his apartment)

    Racists – Jeramiah Wright / Louis Farrakhan

    Bombers of Federal Buildings – William Ayers

    Out and Out Communists – Saul Alinsky

    Thugs – The whole of the Chicago Machine (Blagojevich / Jackson Sr. and Jr. Rahm Emmanual, the Daleys, Rezko and Jim Johnson of Countrywide fame and the aforementioned Franklin Rains of Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac.)

    All these people are still leaders, stars and members in good standing of the Liberal movement, people Obama sought out, learned from and was groomed by. The worst of the worst of all possible people.

    Now why don’t you tell everyone why Texas is faring better than the rest of the country during this economic turmoil.

    Low Taxes / No State Income Tax / Right To Work Laws / Sane Enviornmental Policy / and yes …… A Republican Party in Control.

    And Liberal locals?

    Obama’s Chicago – murder rate through the roof.

    California – Bankrupt ( yes Shwarzenegger is a Liberal)

    NY – Bankrupt (Bloomberg – a Liberal Peterson – a Liberal and before him Spitzer – a Liberal)

    Detroit – corrupt Liberal mayor going to jail while the city is a model of Obamaesque economic policy.

    New Jersey – a former Governor who liked picking up strange men in truck stops for anonymous sex. The state – almost bankrupt.

    New Orleans – derelict governance under Democrats for decades.

    And much more.

    Tell me now. What’s Obama’s solution?
    KLin sez (on 4/21/2009 6:42:25 AM):
    I have a better question, boomerang. What’s your solution? What should our president do? What would his administration have to do to win you over? Cure cancer? Stamp out poverty? Help the Dallas Cowboys get back to the Super Bowl? It seems like you’re determined to hate his presidency no matter what he does, and I’m wondering what it’d take for you to give him a fair shot.
    Me sez (on 4/21/2009 12:03:53 PM):
    “Do you know what causes blindness KLin? Hate. ”

    No. It’s masturbation. And forgetting to wear lab goggles. And maybe saddlebacking.
    chinese boomerang sez (on 4/21/2009 9:48:12 PM):

    I’ll sum up this way, it’s all that needs to be said.

    I have said that Obama sought out as his political influences, spiritual mentors, handlers of his career, just the kind of hate mongers, racists, conspiracy theorists, bombers of federal buildings and sexual predators that you accuse the attendees of the Tea Parties to be. But those are the kinds of people who are the leaders … the creme of the crop of the Democratic party. The people I listed above.

    So, I ask you one more question (you never answered my other questions so I will not show respect to your’s.)

    Why do you think Barack Obama found it so easy to sit placidly through a 50 minute anti-american diatribe by communist thug Daniel Ortega at the recent Americas Conference?

    Answer – it’s the same kind of speech he heard and agreed with for 20 years in the pews of Jeramiah Wright’s church.

    That is our President.

  2. Texas should secede we can make it on our own. With Taxes keep going up and people loosing there jobs, its DC why the country is the way it is now all they want is money for there own pockets, they plain all this thats going on in the U.S. Texas will do just fine on its own we dont need the U.S. the U.S. needs us and our resources, its not just oil we have we have the space program and with out that the U.S would be nothing