|

Happy birthday to Chuck Norris, who says he might someday run for president

 nm_chuck_norris_070704_mn.jpg

 Carlos Ray “Chuck” Norris, who was born 69 years ago today, apparently is resigned to the fact that there aren’t many juicy TV or movie roles open to a martial-arts guy of his advanced age. So, he’s looking for a new career.

 Politics would seem to be a natural choice for the Chuckster, considering his recent experience as a prominent celebrity endorser of Republican presidential candidates.

 Norris’ first choice for the White House, you may recall, was Mike Huckabee, whose conspicuous conservative religiosity matched Chuck’s own devout faith. And when Huckabee faded away, Norris eventually gave his coveted nod to John McCain, who turned out to be the GOP nominee.

 But alas, McCain’s candidacy also failed, no matter that Norris was for him. Ah, but Chuck seems to have come away from all this campaign experience with his own case of presidential fever. He now readily admits that he might want to become president himself.  But there will be none of that climbing-the-political-ladder stuff for him. He wants to start at the top — and not as president of the United States, but as president of an  independent nation. Texas!

 You see, with the socialist-commies now in power in Washington, Chuck figures that Texas, where men are real men, might have to do the manly thing and secede.

 ”Anyone who has been around Texas for any length of time,” he says, “knows exactly what we’d do if the going got rough in America. Let there be no doubt about that. As Sam Houston once said, ‘Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may.’”

 And, by God, if Texas is going to go its own way in this time of trouble, Chuck Norris is more than willing to be its leader.

 Personally, I’m all for it.  Good luck to you, Chuck. I’m sure we’ll be hearing more about you and your fellow secessionists in the coming months and years as you plot your withdrawal from the evil Obamanation.

 And if it doesn’t work out, you’ll at least have laid the foundation for a new career —  in comedy.

 For details on Norris’ political plans, in his own words, check HERE.

Share:

11 Comments

  1. hokumboy

    Losing Texas to get rid of Chuck Norris? I’d agree to that!

  2. Plenty of citizens of the US would flock to go to an independent Texas then stay in the OBAMANATION. As the number 1 poll keeps going down, down, and down.

  3. Orlando Clay

    Michael Jessen, resident troll, wrote: “Plenty of citizens of the US would flock to go to an independent Texas then stay in the OBAMANATION.”

    Fine with me. In fact, I’m willing to bet that many of us at this blog would be willing to chip in for the purchase of a one-way ticket for you, although you probably don’t want to give up the free rent by staying in your parents’ basement. We don’t need whiners like you hanging around as we try to reverse 8 years of repeated Bush failures and misdeeds that brought us to the brink of disaster.

    Megadittoes, blockhead!

  4. Jessen’s probably not man enough to be a real Texan. Real Texans don’t sit around all day writing ridiculous comments to liberal blogs.

  5. It’s a ridiculous article. All of these supposed secession articles I have been reading lately are.

    While personally, I am in favor of a state’s right to secede, I have been overruled by the SCOTUS, The SCOTUS has already made it impossible. They ruled, in Texas vs. White (74 U.S. 700 (1869)) that the union is perpetual, and a state cannot voluntarily secede, or break that union. Further, part of the majority opinion included this statement, spelling out the only possible way to leave this “perpetual union”…

    “The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.”

    So, barring armed revolt (which they would not win), or getting the other states (not sure if that would be majority or super-majority) to approve, these is simply no legal way to secede.

  6. hokumboy

    Speaking of Texas:
    http://tinyurl.com/dyjqe9

  7. DingDong

    Egyas, that was a ruling made right after the civil war. It states no where in the constitution that a state can not secede. The Chief Judge at the time was a former cabinet member of Lincoln, not what you can call impartial. The states joined the union voluntarily and it would reason that you could voluntarily leave.

  8. DingDong, neither of the point about Chief Justice Chase being a former cabinet member for Lincoln, or how long ago the ruling was are valid. The simple fact is that the SCOTUS made a ruling, in a valid federal case, and that ruling is legally BINDING. There is no expiration date or statute of limitations on a Supreme Court ruling. Also, the level of controversy around the ruling does not diminish it’s legal standing. If it did, the Dems would have been able to overturn the decision of Bush v. Gore (531 U.S. 98) back in 2000,

    As to your assertion that “The states joined the union voluntarily and it would reason that you could voluntarily leave.” This is flawed as well. The Texas vs. White ruling prevents their leaving, other than permission by the states or revolution. Also, the SCOTUS has ruled that the states willingly entered into a “perpetual union”, thus claiming that they willingly choose to enter into a perminant association that they cannot break.

    As I said, my PERSONAL opinion is that states should have the right to secede. I, too, believe that the ability to leave means that those that stay do so willingly, not through a lack of options, and that this choice to stay makes the Union as a whole stronger. However, I’m smart enough to see the difference between personal opinion, what “should be”, and what is legal reality.

    As to your statement “…no where in the constitution that a state can not seced”, you are correct. Also not mentioned in the constitution are your rights to have an abortion, to have privacy of medical records, your Miranda rights, etc. These were all recognized as rights by various court (mostly SCOTUS) rulings.

    Bottom line, the SCOTUS is the ultimate legal arbiter of what is and is not constitutional in the United States. Not the President, not Congress, not you, not me. If the SCOTUS rules it so, it IS Constitutional, right, wrong, or indifferent to my and your opinion.

  9. DingDong

    Egyas, to say that SCOTUS ruling is final decision or is correct at all is up for debate. If this was the case, Plessy v. Ferguson would still be the law of the land. They are suppose to interpret the laws not write laws. Also many believe that the SCOTUS has overstepped their bounds many of times. The 10th amendment is clear on this: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”

  10. And that is exactly the argument. Since the Union is considered perpetual, leaving it is prohibited by the states. Again, whether you not you believe that they “overstepped their bounds many of times” is not relevant. I can believe whatever I want, and so can you, but legally it just doesn’t make it so, no matter how much you may want it to.

    Nice try, by the way, on Plessy v. Ferguson. I was waiting for someone to bring that up. You made a mistake by glossing over an important distinction. Plessy v. Ferguson was not overturned by social movement, popular opinion, or legislative act. It was overturned by the SCOTUS. They ruled in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) that the court had erred previously, overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, and invalidated the concept of “separate but equal”. Once again, this supports my statement that only the SCOTUS can decide what is and is not constitutional. Once they rule, only they can readdress the issue going forward. No one else’s opinion means scratch. In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson”, even this took it took 58 years.

  11. DingDong

    Sure the Supreme court can reason anyway they want, but public opinion of the time had changed. It was overturned by someone bringing the case to the court. The court just doesn’t sit there and hand down decisions because it may occur to them that a previous decision was a mistake. Someone outside the court has the opinion that the ruling is wrong and brings it to the court. So saying someone else’s opinion means scratch is not the full story.

Leave a Reply

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


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>