Tweeted by Quite Frankly
Texas (and the three other border states, mind you) have a legal and moral responsibility to repel (not process) the invasion if the human traffickers in D.C. won’t.
And whereas there are plenty of ways this standoff can lead to escalation of force, don’t expect this to amount to anything bigger until States begin rejecting money to/from D.C.. The States don’t have the political/financial autonomy to be meaningfully sovereign otherwise.
When that happens we’d all get a 21st Century real-time lesson about what the Civil War was really about, complete with the predictable splits in public sentiment—so split that most people would fail to learn any valuable lessons.
Because whereas Lincoln invaded the to prevent Southern States from peacefully seceding (regardless if Slavery was a stated purpose or not), we, 150+ years later, would find ourselves in a position to witness similar action against States who would merely be taking measures to restore proper political distance from D.C..
In other words, it wouldn’t even take a formal secession movement to trigger a militant response from the feds at this point, that is how toxic and out-of-bounds (in virtually all matters) Washington D.C. is.
The attacks would be replete with 21st Century psychological warfare tactics, false flags, sabotage, provacateuring of all kinds. Ken Burns would be commissioned by the CIA to produce The Civil War II for PBS by this Christmas.
That’s how we’ll know we’re getting somewhere meaningful.
_____
Texas (and the three other border states, mind you) have a legal and moral responsibility to repel (not process) the invasion if the human traffickers in D.C. won't.
And whereas there are plenty of ways this standoff can lead to escalation of force, don't expect this to amount…
— Quite Frankly (@PoliticalOrgy) January 25, 2024