As Predicted, Secession Rears It’s Head

Get Others Involved

I have previously covered the subject of Secession in an article here, primarily outlining the reason that Secession is a big red bouncing ball that lawmakers will not ever allow the public to actually touch. The basis of the argument is that to declare the intent to secede in US law is to unavoidably declare war. But inevitably lawmakers will use this subject as means of “tough-sounding” distraction with little to no intent on actually following through.

Sure enough, here we go in Texas, with its current record of historic calls for secession numbering over 100. Watch the News Max interview with Chris Salcedo joined by Texas State Rep Kyle Biedermann. Chris is asking all of the right questions but allowing Representative Biedermann to avoid answering the actual questions he is making a point of. Primarily the mincing of legal issues with attempting to draw parallels with United Kingdom Brexit from the EU under European Law vs the laws of the United States which hold the subject to be verbatim a state’s declaration of war.

Or in other words… the EU has a legal process allowing for members states to withdraw, but the US does not and has strictly forbidden the practice.

In watching this interview Representative Biedermann isn’t actually answering the questions so We The People Fight Back are reaching out to him for clarification with the following questions for our readers at the following email

Dear Representative Biedermann,

We The People Fight Back are coving your interview with New Max regarding your proposed bill for secession and would like to ask some follow up questions for our readership. If you could please reply as soon a possible it would be much appreciated by readers. For context, our article can be found here. (in case the link is lost)

During your interview when asked that Texas’s proposition to secede means war, in your response, you state that the subject is “not about war”. However under current US law, the subject of state secession is unequivocally seen as a declaration of war upon the United States. Specifically, from a legal standpoint how do you propose otherwise?

In the same statement, you also state that “this is not about, umm, actually seceding from the United States. This is about the beginning of a process, an act, just like Brexit” We would like to ask, under what parallels of EU law are you concluding this ability from in US law, and could you please state those specific statutes in US law for our readers?

Or are you suggesting that EU law should be applicable in the United States?

Also in your words, “this is not about umm, actually seceding” could you please explain to our readers how a bill to secede is not actually a bill to secede? This seems to lead to more of a situation of political gaming than any actual intent. To be fair and forthcoming, We The People Fight Back do contend that this is in fact a political distraction from real change.

Regarding the hypothetical question, If the citizens of Texas were to pass this initiative to secede, where do you go from there? You replied that… “the bill will state the question, do we want to umm have the right to umm, umm be an independent state?” We would like to know what you mean by “independent state”, specifically; Texas, like every other state in the union of our republic, is already an independent state. Or do you not agree with that, if not, in what specific context do you mean this?

Our clarification of the aforementioned question seeks to distinguish the difference between your proposal and Texas’s current rights of sovereignty under the 10th amendment which has been greatly perverted by SCOTUS rulings such as McCulloch v. Maryland, United States v. Darby Lumber Co both of which then led to the overreaching effects of each citizen’s personal liberty with Wickard v. Filburn. Our readership and movement already understand the 100+ year perversion of the corrupted federal institution’s abuse of the Federal restraints imposed by the US Constitution. In that specific context, how do you specifically relate your concept of conversation and formation of a committee to have the power required to fight back the longstanding SCOTUS rulings on these perversions?

If you are not seeking to address the issues of state sovereignty and the personal liberties of citizens as a whole, what would be the point to this bill be beyond making a spectacle of public distraction?

Our movement is committed to petitioning several states to band together as one voice, using their leverage over natural resources and state boundaries as a means to force the stand down and replacement of our corrupted Federal institutions as a whole. Our readers understand that we have long surpassed the means of controlling the Federal machine by any mere leverages of voting or public regress. Therefore we as citizens wish to join our State Defence Forces such as the Texas Guard to put a show of force, with teeth and firepower as a means of forcing a bloodless revolution.

With your position on the Land and Resources Committee, it would seem you have a particularly good understanding of the power of several joint states working as one, as well as their massive influence over economic sectors of natural gas and oil production. Would you be willing to abandon the call of “secession” to the much-preferred honest call to a war of attrition and embargo as a means of reining in our out-of-control Federal Government? If not why not?

Our context of this question should be clearly understood that we see a massive state-driven deflection cycle of pacification vs real change starting again. Quite frankly our readers and followers are not falling for it anymore.


We The People Fight Back

We will update you if we receive a reply from Representative Biedermann, hold judgment until then.

Get Others Involved

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *