How racist of them!
The parliament of Spain’s powerful northeastern region of Catalonia has approved a largely symbolic declaration stating the region is a sovereign entity, paving the way for a referendum on independence from Spain.
The proposal was carried Wednesday by 85 votes in favor, with 41 against and two abstentions.
Though symbolic, the declaration sets up a potential showdown with the central government in Madrid, which has said it will block any move toward Catalonian independence in the courts.
The declaration was backed by the region’s governing Convergence and Union group and the Republican Left. It was opposed by the Catalonian Socialist Party and the Popular Party that governs Spain.
Polls show Catalonians are evenly divided over independence, but a majority opposes it if it means exiting the European Union.
Un poble, una llengua, una cultura. Països Catalans 2014!
BTW, more than half of Catalunya’s population supports full independence.
WHOA. #1, That’s crazy, #2 That’s beautiful and #3 I wonder how many US-secession bashing idiots in the media will support this as if it’s the greatest thing to happen to humanity…
By Bob Smiley
No doubt Texas’ desire to break free is a source of amusement inside a White House that has mastered the art of belittling the opinions of its challengers, but there is one not-so-small problem here: Texas could pull it off.
Here’s why:
–Resources. Texas currently sits on one-quarter of the nation’s oil reserves and one-third of the nation’s natural gas reserves. Even more, fully 95 percent of the country receives its oil and gas courtesy of pipelines that originate within Texas. This is what one might call leverage.
–The Texas Economy. This is well documented but worth repeating. In the last decade, even with the Great Recession, Texas has expanded by one million jobs. One million. That’s more than every other state … combined. Because of its friendly business climate, Texas is home to more Fortune 500 companies than anywhere else. If Texas were its own country, it would have the tenth-highest GDP in the world. Canada would be number eleven. Or think about it this way: For every dollar Texas taxpayers send to Washington, they currently get only about 80 cents back. Theoretically, they could transfer those funds to the state’s coffers and still give every Texan a 20 percent tax cut.
–Utilities. Texas is the only state with its own power grid. Developed over the course of the last 100 years, the Texas grid covers the majority of the state and is fully state controlled. Translation: Texans could rest assured that the federal government doesn’t have the power — literally — to turn off their lights.
–Defense. While no match for Uncle Sam’s firepower, Texas does have a significant defense presence, namely in the Texas State Guard (which answers only to the governor), the Texas National Guard, the Air Guard and the legendary Texas Rangers. Texas is also home to two of the nation’s largest military bases — Fort Hood and Fort Bliss — and being able to control those two installations is nothing to sniff at. But let’s not forget the firepower of the citizenry itself. There’s a reason burglars don’t waste their time in Texas.
–History. Texas has done this before. Twice, actually. First in 1836, when it seceded from Mexico and became an independent country. Second in 1861, when it joined the Confederacy. And while the South did lose the Civil War, it didn’t lose it in Texas. In fact, by the end of 1864, the North didn’t have one square foot of Texas soil under its control despite many attempts. Even a full month after Robert E. Lee surrendered at the Appomattox Court House, Texas was still fighting. Texans love their state and they love a fight. That is a lethal combination.
Still, all of this leads us back to a legal question: Can they do it? Texas lore claims that the permission to secede is woven into the state’s founding documents. Well, yes and no. The Texas Annexation Agreement of 1845 does say that the state has the right to split into as many as five separate states should it so choose — wouldn’t that make Harry Reid’s head spin? — and the Texas Constitution does say that “the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States,” … but there is no get-out-of-jail-free card.
The counterargument, of course, is that Texas doesn’t need to look to its own history. It can look to America’s. After all, didn’t America secede, as it were, from Great Britain? And doesn’t the first line of our own Declaration of Independence defend a people’s God-given right to assume their own “separate and equal station” under the law?
Just sayin’.
Time to check that petition again.
68,707 … and counting.
I want to see how far this will go, just for shits and giggles. Also, I’ll never, ever make fun of Texas again if this happens. I promise.
Anonymous asked: thoughts on states trying to "secede"
First, let’s clarify. I don’t think states are trying to secede, I think the citizens of those states are PETITIONING to secede. Big difference.
But for the sake of this post, clump it all together and say that the States are trying to secede.
The United States of America is bound together by the ratification of the US Constitution as the doctrine that “Unites” all the states into a single Union where the Constitution grants the Federal Gov’t certain rights, lays out a list of human rights that all 50 states agree to protect, denies states some powers and then allows states to do whatever the Federal Gov’t wasn’t permitted to do and whatever the States weren’t prevented from doing under the US Constitution.
But, these states still exist on their own as 50 Nation States and the Constitution is a legally binding contract between them and the Federal Government.
Being a legal contract, if the States/People believe that there are performance issues by the Federal Government, they can ask for a remedy to the situation. Remedies include damages, specific performance and other remedies (which I’ll get to in a second).
The idea of Nullification was also introduced by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison as a means to combat the unjust laws created by the Federal Government and applied to the states. The theory stands on the grounds that since the binding document between the State and Fed is a legal contract, no new clause or requirement can be introduced by one party without the approval of the other party or parties.
For example, if you sign a contract to buy 100 apples a month from me. I can’t, ex post facto, also make you buy 50 oranges a month with that order and then require you to do so or lose your apple contract. We never agreed on those terms and we are only bound by the terms we agreed to.
This is nullification.
The more extreme form of nullification is secession.
Which brings us to the other remedy of a breached contract: Rescission or the act of rescinding a contract.
In this case, Federal Government is found, by the people or the states, to no longer be engaging in the services which they promised or offered as consideration for the powers that were granted to them.
Not sure on what grounds these secessionists will argue that the Federal Government has failed to perform, but I can think of a few:
- Protection of the Bill of Rights (TSA, NSA, FBI, CIA, DHS, etc, etc, etc)
- Violation of the 5th Amendment (US Citizens were killed with out Due Process of Law),
- Violation of the 1st Amendment (No persons shall protest a public place that has a public servant with Secret Service present)
- Violation of Article 3, Section 3 - Treason (Aiding an enemy of the state, in this case militants in both Libya and Syria who we consider enemies of the state received federal aid and weapons from the government).
- Violation of the 4th Amendment - Search and Seizure (NSA and FBI wire taps and spying without court orders or justification).
This list can probably go on and on, but you get the picture.
As for how I feel about the states actually trying to secede, not sure. Obviously I have a healthy mistrust and distaste for government, so the smaller the better.

