TexasCHLforum.com

I guess I have bit of that eternal optimist DNA in my bloodline- or is it all of that Scotch-Irish blood .............?

In 1962-64 I was stationed at Misawa Air Force Base on the Northern tip of Honshu, Japan. Enlisted personnel chummed up $10 per month out of our approximately $ 40 base pay into the " K.P. (kitchen police) fund" from which the Japanese employees in the chow halls were paid. 25 percent out of my pay was a bunch, and besides that some of the JN's working in the chow hall had some attitude issues that tended to get under our skin.

So a few of us got to discussing this situation, decided we would refuse to kick into the "K.P. Fund" at the next pay call. We rightly figured that there was no way under the status of forces agreement that the JN's would loose their jobs in the Chow halls, and more importantly we knew that there was something not quite Kosher about the deduction from our paychecks rather than DOD funding for that item.

The boycott caught on pretty fast, and you guessed it....... myself and other "rebels" were scheduled for K.P. every day for our next 2 breaks from duty. Strangely.....when we once again refused to chum up $10 for the "K.P. Fund" at the next pay call it wasn't long before it was announced that there would no longer be a $10 "K.P. Fund" collected. The Air Force had somehow found the funds to budget the salaries of the JN employees.

I hope this true anecdote illustrates that when something isn't Kosher - nothing changes until finally "somebody" is willing to stand up ( or SIT DOWN in the case of one Rosa Parks)

Reflecting upon "positive" vs "negative" reinforcement studies in behavioral science - When a dog barks excessively the "bark Collar" delivers a slight electrical jolt. Hmmmmmmm ....that wasn't fun, maybe I should NOT bark. This is why it is important that freedom loving people will occassionally be called upon to demonstrate to family members their intention that the code of conduct be respected. We understand that no one is perfect, and we all screw up from time to time, but it need not become a habit. When it becomes a habit -family intervention is warranted.

Sometimes family interventions manifest in the form of a verbal warning that if behavior isn't modified refusal to participate in the enablement of the deviant behavior will follow. Kind of like - a word to the wise.

It occurs to me that marital harmony is akin to political harmony. It is more often than not the simple recognition of the separation/divorce option , and the spectre of domestic destruction that invariably follows that holds most marital unions together.

If one member of the marital union increasingly becomes oppressive of the other in violation of a contract that expressly, and quite specificly defines individual boundaries of each - the subject of divorce will eventually be addressed.

A contract is executed through the mutually affirmed consent of the parties. That contract determines the legal rights, prerogatives, and remedies available - or not available - in the event of nonperformance or malfeasance on the part of the parties to the contractual agreement.

The U.S. Constitution forbids the MEMBER states from entering into separate alliances with one another such as the Confederate States of America, but it does not forbid the member states from secession. Secession amounts to separation by rescinding membership for the purpose of independence. Accounting for financial claims on behalf of, or against the state seceding would be a priority concern to be addressed through treaty. The only recourse to prevent secession by a state is by force of arms, and there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution for the use of force to prevent secession - only to suppress rebellion WITHIN the union. Secession by definition is a condition WITHOUT the union.

The expectation implicit within the Constitution of these United States is that adherence to its provisions is absolutely essential to the preservation of the very union established by those provisions.

It is noteworthy that a discussion quite similar to this one was taking place in - of all places - Texas, circa 1835-36.
Most Texians, and Tejanos during that period would have probably preferred not to rock the boat. If Santa Ana had not been a narcistic despot who considered himself to be above the law , we would probably be Spanish- speaking Catholics defending our Republic from filibusters from the U.S.

I believe a discussion over rather obvious, and stiking historical patterns involving the abuse of power falls within the realm of "political" topics. Sooner or later even rational people may disagree, but when elected office holders undertake to discount, and disregard the very rule of law that establishes the legitimacy of the power of their office they also forfeit any moral, or legal claim to authority under which to exercise those powers.

This is a very interesting step in the right direction that I haven't seen mentioned yet on the forum.

http://www.texnat.org/news/tnm-news/191 ... -on-hcr-77" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Every Texas House representative needs to be incouraged to support this resolution of the House.

Its's a polite reminder to the U.S. Congress, the White House, the SCOTUS, and any other interested parties that Texas reserves the right to go it alone if push comes to shove.

I love it. This resolution passes and is tendered to the U.S. Congress, patriots from all over the country may be heading to Texas.