Chuck Norris, Revolutionary and President of Texas

Liberals often complained that George Bush had committed a variety of infractions including restrictions on civil liberties, ignoring Constitutional checks and balances on the presidency, and lying the country into a war. Conservatives responded by declaring that liberals had Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Despite this supposed derangement, the most that liberals advocated was utilization of Constitutional measures such as impeachment. On the other hand, Chuck Norris takes objection to a president’s actions to a new level.

On the Glenn Beck show (figures) Norris quipped that he might run for president of Texas. At WorldNetDaily he further discussed the need for violent revolution. This is primarily in protest against Obama’s spending measures, but he also throws in the usual conservative revisionist history which denies our heritage of separation of church and state with a secular government. (If you need to cherry pick a statement by John Adams as reason to ignore First Amendment rights you are getting pretty desperate.)

If liberals showed derangement for opposing Bush’s violations of the Constitution, what do we call someone who calls for violent revoluton because the oppose the president’s spending policies and oppose our First Amendment rights?

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. 1
    Eclectic Radical says:

    Chuck Norris, specifically, is a crackpot.

    It is disappointing. He appears to be a nice, well meaning, rather likable guy with a serious concern for family and thrift and a dangerous naivete about political issues as they relate to religious issues.

    The real concern is that he is being exploited by people who know better, to advance their agendas, rather than being educated.

  2. 2
    A.C. says:

    Saying we have a secular federal government and a “separation of church and state” is not the same thing. The truth of the former really has no bearing on the meaninglessness of the latter, which is a now universalized phrase of Jefferson’s via Hugo Black. Read Philip Hamburger’s book on the subject for a balanced historical overview of the whole subject; maybe then you’ll realize conservatives aren’t making this stuff up out of thin air. 

  3. 3
    Ron Chusid says:

    If you are using Hamburger’s Separation of Church and State as your reference, for all practical purposes you are making things up. His work is a revisionist history which attempts, but fails, to prove the author’s right wing biases on the subject. He contrives reasons to ignore the views of people such as Jefferson and Madison which contradict his own views. Personally I’ll continue to believe that Jefferson and Madison more accurately represent the views of the founding fathers than Hamburger does. The book is hardly a valid historical source to cite.

  4. 4
    DB says:

    My problem with the far-right is that when they don’t get their way they think the best route is to bring the country down. At least the far-left people who don’t get their way move to Canada. Chuck Norris is obviously part of the problem.

  5. 5
    Fritz says:

    Are you actually opposed to Texan secession?   Think of the benefits.  I only hope that as part of the deal, the Republic of Texas will assume the Bush administration’s debt.  It would only be fair.

  6. 6
    Eclectic Radical says:

    Fritz, it’s not that any of us would miss Texas. We just feel for all those Texans who would have to live under the tyranny of a God-anointed ruler who would kick their asses if they stepped an inch out of line.

    Personally, I wonder if Chuck is really bitter about Obama’s administration because now he can’t have that really cool border security job Mike Huckabee promised him.

  7. 7
    Ron Chusid says:


    You are way ahead of me. I had considered advantages of Texan secession based upon preventing any more Texans from ever becoming president again. We seem to wind up in wars when that happens. Getting rid of the Bush administration debt would be another huge benefit.

  8. 8
    Tex says:

    Trust me, the feeling is mutual.  Texas would LOVE to secede from the liberal union that bambi is creating. 

    Texas – nations main supplier of beef
    Texas – plenty of agriculture to support ourselves
    Texas – plenty of oil and gas AND refineries
    Texas – huge seaport
    Texas – # 2 city in the nation with Fortune 500 companies (Houston)
    Texas – Enough weapons and armed citizens to take care of ourselves

  9. 9
    Ron Chusid says:

    Many Texans would also like to secede from the “liberal republic” which the founding fathers created.

  10. 10
    Tex says:

    The only problem I see with secession, is where will we send all the illegals, criminals and welfare recipients?  I’m pretty sure that Chuck would make some laws that probably wouldn’t be conducive to the lifestyle of a lot of liberals.

    Proposed laws:
    #1.  Only tax paying legal citizens could vote.
    #2.  Students, workers, or retirees who are financially secure would be allowed to call Texas home, nobody else.
    #3.  All residents would be required to serve 2 years of military service immediately out of high school, much like Israel.
    #4.  All homes would be required to have at least one firearm.

    That would be a good start.

  11. 11
    Ron Chusid says:

    The answer to where you would put them is obvious–prison. Texas already leads the country in percentage incarcerated. With people like Chuck Norris running the state it would probably quickly degenerate into a fascist country with tremendously more people incarcerated.

  12. 12
    Friar_Zero says:

    #1.  Only tax paying legal citizens could vote.

    So if I find myself unemployed on election day then I’m screwed?

    #2.  Students, workers, or retirees who are financially secure would be allowed to call Texas home, nobody else.

    There are students who are financially secure?

    #3.  All residents would be required to serve 2 years of military service immediately out of high school, much like Israel.

    Let’s assume that you are a republican conservative and think that ig government is evil. Then why would you be in favor of giving the government the power to force you to serve in the army. It doesn’t sound very freedom loving to me.

    #4.  All homes would be required to have at least one firearm.

    Does that include violent ex-cons, the mentally ill, and those with a history of spousal/child abuse?

  13. 13
    Ron Chusid says:

    Re #2, I assume he allows students because they will be of value in the future, and it is understandable they have a good excuse for not being financially secure. But what happens if they have no job after graduation day?

    Re #4, I assume there would be no ex-cons as they wouldn’t let people out of prison. They also probably would not allow the mentally ill to live in the state.

  14. 14
    Jcrucial says:

    Hey Tex,

    Why don’t you just say people of colour?

  15. 15
    Eclectic Radical says:

    Re #4:

    Ron, Zero, we’re missing the basic fact. This is Texas. If Chuck Norris were president of Texas, they’d execute everyone in prison. No more overcrowding and they’d never have to release anyone. Just turn every prison in the state into one gigantic death row and keep doing what they’ve been doing, but much faster.

  16. 16
    Texas Right Winger says:

    Texas would gladly take Bush’s debt – yall can take Obama’s debt!

  17. 17
    DB says:

    Wow, I didn’t know Texans were so open about hating America.

  18. 18
    Fritz says:

    I love it when a plan comes together.

  19. 19
    nomoreGOP says:

    “I only hope that as part of the deal, the Republic of Texas will assume the Bush administration’s debt.  It would only be fair.”

    do they have to pay california back for the energy “crisis” that Texas (with the help of someone named DICK Cheney and Halliburton)  constructed to get Gov. Davis out of office? we are still paying astronomically high prices for energy because of that BS.

    and tex.. seriously? have you ever even though of using that mushy pink thing inside your thick skull?

    this is the EPITOME of why people like Rush, Coultier, Hannity and all of Fox News should be held responsible for the lies and misconceptions they create..

    with all of that said.. where do i sign up to help this process along? i would love to see texas (and alaska while we are at it) secede.. then all of the terrorists wouldnt have to hate america.. they would just hate texas.. lol

    but in all seriousness.. Tex.. you are a sad and pathetic individual if you really truly believe the crap you are spewing.. do you even realize the mess your buddy Bush got ALL OF US into? wake up and smell the no-lube ass raping buddy.. come on..

  20. 20
    Texan Liberterian says:

    Its not that we hate America… its where America has been going for the last 20 years.  Under Obama, just like Bush, the Federal government is getting bigger and bigger, spending more and more…    Also, I love how liberals automatically assume ‘right wing conservative’ when anyone opposes their views.   I like the name nomoreGOP… we just need to add nomoreDEMS too!

  21. 21
    Ron Chusid says:

    Nobody is assuming that any one who opposes liberal views is a right wing conservative.  However when someone expresses right wing conservative views (and in one case even signs their comment Texas Right Winger) they will be viewed as right wing conservatives. There are even a lot of people using the libertarian label are actually right wing conservatives, such as we saw in the Ron Paul movement last year.

  22. 22
    Eclectic Radical says:

    Not to mention that the Libertarian Party gave its presidential nomination to Bob Barr in this last election cycle, rather than elevating an actual Libertarian candidate. It’s true that Barr did attempt to redefine his abortion and gay rights positions to come more into line with the official Libertarian positions on same once accepting the nomination. It is also true that Barr reversed his original position on the Patriot Act long before he was being considered as a presidential candidate by anyone. Still, Barr is a paleoconservative and not a true libertarian despite his small government stance.

    The same is true of Ron Paul, who attracted many Libertarians to Republican primaries and who has been the Libertarian nominee in the past as well. Paul has never attempted to redefine his anti-libertarian positions on abortion and gay rights even when he was running on the Libertarian ticket.

    It’s hard to tell the real libertarians from the paleoconservatives sometimes, Texan Libertarian.

  23. 23
    Ron Chusid says:

    Did you happen to watch the Libertarian Convention last year? Some people really objected to running a Republican (or in the minds of many, ultimately a pair of Republicans). It took several ballots for Barr to win the nomination. Most likely he obtained support because people thought that he could bring in the most votes. We saw how well that turned out.

  24. 24
    Eclectic Radical says:

    I’m not claiming the entire Libertarian Party is paleoconservative, but the party has made very public decisions to ally itself with the paleoconservative movement in two presidential elections now. Yes, neither nomination was in any way unanimous and neither candidate enjoyed success at the polls, but both nominations happened. For them to have happened, enough people had to be willing to reconcile themselves to the decision to allow it.

    I’ve made this point on other blogs in discussing an entirely different issue, but for someone to win an election or a nomination there has to be a hard knot of people who wholly approve and a large body willing to go along.

    My personal belief is that both instances were purely pragmatic publicity stunts. Both the leaders of the Libertarian Party and the congressmen in question knew their ticket was not going to win. So neither side felt any qualms about getting together so that everyone involved got more media attention. The price, however, is that more leftist libertarians feel alienated by their party leadership while the public has associated libertarianism and paleoconservatism in their minds.

    I think it was most telling in the most recent Republican primary, when one neoconservative GOP analyst dismissed Paul as ‘not being a real Republican’ and being ‘more of a libertarian than a conservative’ when he was the most traditionally conservative candidate in the field.

Leave a comment