If the South was under Southron Law rather than the imperial dictates of Mordor on the Potomac, the terrorist attack at Ft. Hood would not have occurred. Texas has a right to carry law, and had that been in place rather than the federal decrees, the soldiers would not have died. Furthermore, the soldiers would not have the rules of engagement that they currently have to endure in Afghanistan.
Under Southron Law, the specter of political correctness would not have allowed for the jihadist to have remain in his position in the armed forces. Had Southron Law, which would have maintained tighter immigration laws rather than the loose laws put in place under Kennedy’s immigration law, such incidents would not have occurred.
Southron Law would not apologize for the faith and heritage of this nation. It would have protected the borders and allowed soldiers to carry their weapons upon themselves in the military base. The right to bear arms and would have been respected. The present problem is not about gun control, it is about the empire transforming the law and courts. It is about the Supreme Court not allowing State Law to prevail. It is about the removal of freedoms from the citizenry. It is about an executive branch who selectively enforces laws and refuses to protect the borders which is its responsibility. It is about an executive branch who hamstring the military from performing their duties by using them as guinea pigs for social programs rather than allowing them to function as the armed forces which they are.
When the ‘enemy’ attacked, he would have been taken out promptly. Look at how armed Texans took out the UT tower shooter. Had Texas law prevailed, then the shooter would have been ‘neutralized’ sooner.
The occurrence of the Ft. Hood terrorist attack and subsequent handling of the affair is a testament of how the system is ‘broken’. Consider how Ft. Hood is reportedly a highly secured military installation yet despite the security, weapons are not allowed inside. The military are not allowed to police their own ranks. Being politically correct is more important than speaking the plain truth.
We need a return to sanity. We need independence. It is only with independence that any kind of sane laws can be made and enforced. It is only through independence that our borders will be secured and liberties enjoyed and passed on to posterity. A return to independence would mean our leaders would stand tall, bowing to no other nation. Instead we have an administration that wants to burden us with debt, help out rouge nations, apologize for our values and culture, and bow to foreign dignitaries. We have a Congress who wants to tell us how much electricity we can use and what kind of light bulbs we can buy.
Liberty for Texas and the South!
J Murrah
Current Affairs, federal immigration law, Ft. Hood, immigration, rules of engagement, Southron LawIf you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
The Federal Government’s handling of illegal immigration is indefensible. For several decades it has deliberately failed to enforce border security through existing law, while giving illegal aliens all the economic benefits of citizenship and ultimately granting them actual citizenship through amnesty. In short, the government lures illegal immigrants. Since the government itself bears responsibility for the invasion, we can expect those responsible to deny that illegal immigration is a problem. That’s what we see in the recent remark by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. She appeared on CNN recently and said that “crossing the border is not a crime per se.” 
Advocates of uncontrolled immigration are unable to refute these points with reasoned argument. Instead they resort to tactics which have no place in civil discourse. An instance of these tactics occurred recently at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, where former Congressman Tom Tancredo was scheduled to speak about immigration. A group of students in sympathy with illegal immigrants and led by like-minded faculty rioted in protest. According to the Chancellor of the University, guest speaker Tancredo “felt threatened and left without making his remarks.” 
