March 1, 2023

692: Debunking National Divorce MYTHS

@TheTexianDM on National Divorce, @TexasNatMov, & Self-Governance


Are you tired of the same old political debates that never seem to go anywhere? Are you looking for a fresh perspective on American governance? Then you won't want to miss this episode of The Brian Nichols Show, featuring a thought-provoking conversation with Daniel Miller, the president of the Texas Nationalist Movement.

Miller challenges viewers to think outside the box and consider the concept of national divorce - the idea that states should reassess their relationship with the federal government and prioritize self-governance. He offers compelling examples from around the world of successful self-governance movements and argues that the time has come for states to take control of their own destinies.

In this episode, Brian and Daniel delve into the reality of city-states existing within states and examine the greater Idaho movement, as well as the 51st state movements in Colorado and New York. Miller offers a fresh perspective on the idea of national divorce, pushing viewers to think critically about the influence of the federal union and the impact it has on policy decisions.

If you're ready for a lively and engaging discussion that challenges the status quo and pushes the boundaries of traditional political discourse, then you won't want to miss this episode of The Brian Nichols Show. Join Brian and Daniel as they explore the concept of national divorce and inspire viewers to think critically about governance and self-determination in America.

 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Studio SponsorBNC: Proven sales and messaging strategies that WIN - brian@briannicholsconsulting.com



Support our Sponsors!

Support the program with a one-time donation or join our Patreon!

Take our audience survey for a chance to win a "Don't Hurt People, Don't Take Their Stuff" bumper sticker! 

 

 

Transcript

Brian Nichols  0:10  
Are we on our way to a national divorce? Yeah, let's talk about that. Instead of focusing on winning arguments, we're teaching the basic fundamentals of sales and marketing and how we can use them to win in the world of politics, teaching you how to meet people where they're at on the issues they care about. Welcome to The Brian Nichols Show. Hey there, folks, Brian, here on The Brian Nichols Show. And thank you for joining us on of course, another phenomenal episode. I am as always, your humble host joining us live from our Stratus ip studios, here in lovely Eastern Indiana. Don't let cyber attacks or outdated Business Technology put your company at risk. Learn more by scheduling a one on one consultation with yours truly at Brian Nichols show.com forward slash Stratus ip P. Well, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene really got the conversation going when she started talking about the idea of national divorce saying we are as a country broken, we aren't really a country anymore. We are a country of red states and blue states. Now, let's rewind a little bit back to January of 2022, where I did an episode where I said by Philadelphia because I went and I said I have to leave the northeast, I'm seeing where we're at, I have to get out and surround myself with people who not only share the same values, but also the shame, the rather the same goals. And we're looking with the same principles, right. So how do we as a society, reconcile these differences when sometimes they are irreconcilable? Differences? That's a hard word to say. But to talk about that. We've had a lot of folks bring some different ideas to the table. And one we've heard here was Texas, which is definitely a part of the national divorce. So we're going to talk more from a Texas perspective, but really talking to national conversation, our good friend joining us from the Texas movement. And that is Daniel Miller of attorney, The Brian Nichols Show, Daniel, welcome back. How you doing?

Daniel Miller  2:02  
Thanks for having me. Absolutely. Thank

Brian Nichols  2:04  
you for joining us. And thank you for fighting the good fight down there in Texas. Now, before we get into our conversation about national divorce, do as a favor now you've been on the show a couple of times for the new member of the audience here. Give us a quick recap, who are you and what is exit?

Daniel Miller  2:17  
Sure. I'm Daniel Miller, and I'm president of an organization called the Texas nationalist movement. And of course, our primary campaign is the Texas now campaign. Anyone who's familiar with Brexit, the British exit from the European Union should be very familiar with the term Texas, which is a Texas exit from the union and an opportunity for us to reclaim our right of self government.

Brian Nichols  2:39  
Now we're going to talk about, obviously the topic at hand, and that is one larger national divorce. So let's start here, Daniel, national divorce. Why is this a conversation that so many states like Texas, like even New Hampshire, are starting to have more and more frequently? And why is it starting to become an actual national conversation? Well, look,

Daniel Miller  3:02  
since since the inception of our organization, 2005. And since I got involved in this idea of Texas independence in 1996, our contention has been all along that states should be having the same conversation that we're having here in Texas. And that is a fundamental reassessment of the relationship between all the states. And whether or not the federal union as an institution is serving our people. You know, one of the stats that I think blows people out of the box often is at the end of World War Two, there are roughly 54 recognized countries around the world. And by the end of the 20th century, there were 195. Now there are over 200. And essentially what those people were were people just like us, we believe that the best people to govern themselves just happen to be them. So, you know, this, this is a conversation that I think has been happening to some degree everywhere, in varying sizes and scopes, you know, obviously, Texas, New Hampshire, California has had this conversation going Alaska's had an Independence Party since the 1980s. New York. Yeah, New York. I mean, you know, and, you know, when you I think when you take it to a broader context, beyond states withdrawing from the union, and just look at, you know, the greater Idaho movement or the 51st state movements in Colorado or New York, there is some fundamental questioning about whether or not the system as it is serves the people it was meant to serve.

Brian Nichols  4:30  
Yeah, yeah. Well, let's go back. I'll give you a real life example. Right. And I screamed out New York, because that's my home state. And who upstate New York versus the city. Wow. Like you want to talk about complete and utter disdain that the Northern New York part of the state has for the capitol region and then south. I mean, you can't even get it on a scale because it's so high. And just to see, I know that that's not untypical, right of the underrepresented areas when you have a large population center, like in New York City, like Los Angeles slash San Francisco name, big city here. So I guess, isn't that a concern when you're looking at national divorce, because while we might be able to break up into the smaller states, you still have sometimes these little city states right inside of these more red states, like let's say, Austin, for example, I know Austin has been leaning a bit more purpley blue in Texas. I know, Philadelphia has completely washed away now into purple world into a rather blue world. So you see a lot of these big cities, they are being completely co opted. So what do we do there? I mean, do we still have the ability to have a national divorce within the national divorce? Yeah,

Daniel Miller  5:47  
I mean, let's let's be clear, national divorces is not a plan. It's a slogan, and there is no singular common definition or perspective on what it is. But, you know, Brian, I would contend that you know, it just counter with the really old school euphemism about, you know, how do you how do you eat an elephant, one bite at a time. And so, you know, we one of the things that I think states need to understand is this discussion about national divorce or whether their state should become independent or shift boundaries? I think the the proverbial elephant in the room is the the oversized influence and impact that our being in a federal union poses. You know, one of the things that we did, I think it was two legislative sessions back, we did a study of all the bills that were filed here in Texas. And what we found is 41% of those bills, reference the federal government in some form, whether it's a federal law, federal regulation, a federal agency. And so what you what you have, in effect is, about half of our bills here in Texas, were being written by two and a half million unelected bureaucrats. That pack of reprehensible is in Washington, DC, or K Street lobbyists. So you know, we, we have to remember that none of the states in our lifetimes in our memories, or the lifetimes of our grandparents, have ever been able to make any substantive policy decision outside of the context of the federal system. So when you when you begin to tackle this issue, okay, so to your point of governance inside the state, one of the byproducts that you see, when you study these independence movements around the world, is a fundamental reexamination of the relationship with the larger body forces a, an examination of the governance that you also have at home. So you're your only opportunity really to make those sorts of those sorts of decisions, those sorts of changes, whether it's establishing or reestablishing a solid balance between rural and urban population centers, or you know, how you construct your legislature or your executive, the only time there's ever any sort of willingness to really open that can of worms, is when you have these fundamental reexaminations of governance with that larger body. And so, you know, that's what I tell people all the time, when, when we have this debate. And I don't mean in an academic sense, I don't mean Marjorie, Taylor Greene, make some comment on Twitter, and then everybody blows up, and then you know, everybody's back and forth. I mean, when you put a vote on your independence on the ballot, and you're heading toward that, that date with destiny, only then do you get the real true examination of governance, both, you know, speaking in terms here, both in our relationship with the federal system, but also here at home. And only after that vote, do you get to implement concrete solutions to fix those problems?

Brian Nichols  8:56  
Daniel, one objection and maybe with this, there'll be a good part here for us to help looking at these objections and maybe addressing them more as concerns and this is definitely when I've seen word up more and more frequently is that national divorce will end in bloodshed and it will end in less liberty for everyone. What say you?

Daniel Miller  9:13  
Yeah, I'm obviously I'm not a victim of the fear porn. You know, I talk about it in my book all I talk about it quite a bit, this thing called Project fear. And, you know, that really is the only tactic of the opposition is fear mongering. So, you know, when you when you deconstruct that argument that it ends in bloodshed, number one, that's not how it's been in the rest of the world. You know, one of the most I think, dramatic examples of that was you had the Sudanese descended into a civil war that killed I think it was a million and a half people. And the only solution that ended the bloodshed was the separation of North and South. And so you know, you had that that agreed upon framework where South Sudan will Left Sudan, and it ended the bloodshed. And while that is the most dramatic example, what you find is, is that those people that are threatening Civil War, number one are probably wanting it and to some degree, right, they just feel like that. But but the other part of this is, is that if if you were held by coercion by the threat of force, is it really? Is it really a voluntary relationship? You know, I look at Article One, Section two of the Texas Constitution, it says that all political power is inherent in the people. And all three governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit, and the people have at all times the inalienable right to alter reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient. So what we're talking about here is, you know, from if you're looking if you're going to take their argument at face value, they're essentially saying that if the people go to the polls and a peaceful political vote, and I recognize legal process, and they cast their ballot for independence, that the repercussions will be bloodshed, that will be the retribution. Well, that doesn't sound like a government, we want to be part of Texas wouldn't want to be part of North Korea, or Syria, or Iran, or Cuba. But that's how governments like that would behave. So if they are saying that that's the federal government's reaction in response to a regular democratic process, then I think they're signaling us and telling us everything we need to know about the way the situation is. Good news is that out of the 150 plus countries that have popped up over the globe over the last 75 to 80 years, that that idea has been the exception and not the norm.

Brian Nichols  11:45  
Got another one for yet. So what the outcome of this national divorce may lead to says critics is that we're going to be replacing our existing constitution. And then having folks like Nancy Pelosi, and Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer, the best that America has to offer, many of those individuals will be out writing these brand new, several smaller constitutions. When say you, Daniel,

Daniel Miller  12:12  
well, ultimately, that's would be up to the people that are in their particular state, right? Because you have to remember national divorce as a slogan, it's not a plan. However, that being said, ultimately, it's up to every single solitary state, whether whether they stay in the union, or they leave the union, right, there's not this idea, national divorce, you don't have political parties withdrawing from the union, you have sovereign entities that are called states that make up the union, those states created the union, and it is up to those states individually to determine whether they stay or whether they go. And so that being said, ultimately, if if California wants Nancy Pelosi writing their constitution, that's up to them to make that decision if they choose independence, right. But you know, and perhaps maybe some of that, that you're talking about deals specifically with this idea that Marjorie Taylor Greene floated of, you know, to separate unions or different unions. After that, I will tell you that I would fight tooth and nail at the end of Texas independence for Texas to join another union. Right? I don't believe that we live in a day and age where we need an absolute political and economic union, for the states to function and be prosperous. Around the World. Right now, states do business with one another via treaty, you have trade deals, you have traveled deals, you have mutual defense pacts, and the thing about those is, is that you are not required to be in an absolute political and economic union and take a knee toward a capital that's not yours. Something on the other end of states withdrawing from the union. That just means that those states could do business with one another via treaty and forge their own trade agreements, do it like the rest of the world does. Unfortunately, Brian, and I think part of the reason that this comes up from the opposition is frankly, many of them just don't understand the way the world works.

Brian Nichols  14:12  
Well, here's one concern. I've heard from those folks who they think they know how the world works. And that is, well, Daniel, obviously, national divorce will result in us having a world where in order to go visit my grandparents, I'm going to have to show my papers in order to do that. Is it the truth? Or is that just more fear Porn

Daniel Miller  14:30  
was just more fear porn? I mean, look, I mean, you want to get down to the to the brass tacks of it every single solitary day, there are one and a half million legal border crossings between the United States and Mexico using nothing more than a border transit card. Okay. So you know, you that's one model that actually already exists and is happening right now, in this same territory that we're in that people can look at and go okay, this is how it works. But there are other models around the world you know, you have In the European within the European Union, even though those, those countries still have much more sovereignty than we do, they use a whole other conversation. But they executed what is effectively a travel agreement between them, which is a free travel zone. Right. So you have the ability to do those things. But I want to, I want to address this part of it. We have to understand right now that according to the federal government, there is free travel essentially, in the form of unrestricted mass migration between pretty much the rest of the world in Texas and the rest of the United States, when you have more illegal aliens allowed in the country every single solitary day, or every single solitary month, than the total number of Allied troops that landed on the beaches of Normandy on D Day, you've got a significant issue there. So, you know, the only way that you're ever going to restore sanity to the border, the international borders, and immigration is to become a self governing independent nation, the federal government has facilitated this they are they are working hand in hand with the cartels to make it happen. And that's not a conspiracy theory. That is that is a literal fact of what's happening here in Texas. So, you know, this travel between the states, there are examples around the world of how that works between sovereign self governing independent nations, this is no different.

Brian Nichols  16:27  
What would you say? Are some of it, you're going to pick many, let's pick maybe one or two. Some of the best arguments, though, that the folks who are weary of a national divorce may make what are the ones that you identify as, like, Yeah, that might be a concern?

Daniel Miller  16:44  
Well, look, I look, we have we have answered effectively, every question ever put to us on the text issue. And many years ago, we flipped the script. Because this is the way that I think people need to conceptualize it right, you can get really bogged down in the minut details. And when I say this, I mean it with all sincerity, and it comes not just from us, but it comes from other other, you know, eminent academics in the in the field around the world. The small things have to be worked out, but in the end, they get worked out, right. But when you flip the script, the way that people need to begin to look at this, instead of saying, you know, should we leave? What they need to do is they need to ask themselves this question. If my state was already a self governing independent nation among nations, we had control over on border and immigration policy. We had control over our own military and defense policy and national security policy, our own taxation and monetary policy. We had our own trade deals, our own embassies, our own passports, everything that 200 other self governing independent nations around the world have. And instead of talking about withdrawing, we were being asked to make the decision as to whether or not we would join the union today, knowing everything you know about the federal government, would you vote to join. And if you wouldn't vote to join, then why tolerate staying one day longer than you have to?

Brian Nichols  18:11  
Count? I have a better argument to make than that. I think we're at this point. Now Daniel, where we've unfortunately beaten this poor horse to death, even more, though, than it already was beaten. Because yeah, I think at this point, that what three episodes have had you in the show here is that being the concrete argument for national divorce, or at the very least, having a peaceful dislike dissolution of this very, very, very imperfect union that we have right now. And I think this goes to my final thoughts is that I left Philadelphia for a reason. And, and I feel so much better because of it. Now, that's that's a great step in that direction for me, but I'm still beholden to a lot of the negative decisions that Philadelphia or Pennsylvania makes, because of the way our system is set up. Daniel, you're down there in Texas, right? I don't have to tell you this. But you're experiencing the same thing as well, even though you Texas really hasn't contributed nearly as much as like states like California or New York or Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, you go down the list of these very, very high spend high take states. So it just makes sense. When you look at the way that the world is also going, people are tending to go away from the larger entities and the larger corporation air quote, and going down to wanting to support your more, quote, mom and pop shop, which if you were to turn that into the political world, that's what this is, right? This is going local, this is trying to go back to our roots, which is federalism where your localities had their rights, then the states had their rights, and then the federal government had their rights and each was very explicitly explained in terms of what they could do, but also what they could not do. That's why we have our ninth and 10th amendments, but we seem to forget that those exists. So I'm very thankful that there folks like you, Daniel out there fight the good fight. So that's my final thoughts. What do you have for us today?

Daniel Miller  20:04  
Yeah, look, it's pretty straightforward, Brian, I mean, this is the conversation that we all need to be having. We're at a pivotal moment in our history. And I think that the greatest fear that any of us should have is that this conversation not happen. There are plenty of people out there who do not want it to happen. They want to scare people into not having the conversation and to in and frighten them into accepting a status quo. That is really not a true status quo. Because if we do not have this conversation now, then what will happen is the size, scope and power of the federal government will continue to increase and corruption and dysfunction will be magnified. And so rather than separate based off of some, you know, some really fuzzy political partisan lines, what we need to do is we need to look at the way that things are fundamentally constructed. States created the federal union, we all live in free, independent and sovereign states. And ultimately, every one and every state should be not only having this conversation, but working toward putting this to a vote.

Brian Nichols  21:13  
All right, folks, well, if you enjoyed today's episode, I'm gonna ask you to do me a solid Go ahead, give it a share. When you do, please tag yours truly at B nickels, Liberty Daniel working folks go ahead and tag you but also continue the conversation. Yeah,

Daniel Miller  21:27  
they can find me anywhere on social media with the Texian DM, that's th e TXIAN. DM all over the place. Or if you want to know more information about texting, head over to Texas now.org.

Brian Nichols  21:40  
Or if you want to know more information about Texas. Stay tuned, because I'm going to have a little special here for you afterwards. But folks, yes, please, if you enjoy today's episode, or if you're a part of a state that you're thinking we maybe we should start talking about this. Well, please make sure you go ahead and share today's episode. And also do me a favor if you've not had the chance to hit that subscribe button on your favorite podcast catcher so you don't miss a single time. We go live. And by the way, speaking of go live, we go live over on rumble on Odyssey and over on YouTube five days a week 6pm Eastern ballpark around there. So if you've not had the chance to head over there as well hit that subscribe button little notification bell so you'll miss a single time we go live. And also if you're one of the 99% of the folks who are joining us here the podcast version of the show, do yourself a favor hit the podcast catch your artwork, we'll bring you over to today's episode, where you can find all the transcript from today's episode, all the links we talked about. Plus you can find all of Daniels social media links. And by the way, if you're joining us here on YouTube, we're going to continue the conversation right over here. As Daniel and I were going to sit down and talk way back I guess a couple months ago where we sat down actually talked about what is text that we went through everything Texas, everything you could possibly have for questions. We answered it there so we will continue the conversation there. Otherwise, thank you for joining us. With that being said Brian Nichols signing off. You're on The Brian Nichols Show for Daniel Miller from Texas. We'll see you later all righty my man i

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

Daniel MillerProfile Photo

Daniel Miller

President

Daniel Miller is a sixth-generation Texan, a technology consultant, best-selling author, and President of the Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM). As an outspoken advocate for Texas independence since 1996, Daniel is considered the founder of the modern-day TEXIT movement.

He has been featured on every major news network and interviewed by every major newspaper in Texas and worldwide. In addition, as a guest on Hannity, Fox Business, BBC News, Real America’s News, Newsmax, and many other news outlets, Daniel has been a strong and unapologetic voice for the right of self-government for Texans and the dangers posed by the overreaching and fundamentally broken federal government.

Business Experience
Daniel has been involved in the technology industry in Texas since the mid-1990s. He currently works as a freelance technology consultant for small to medium-sized companies and startups. He also operates Radio Free Texas, a digital music platform focused on Texas music, with his wife, Cara.

TEXIT
In 2005, Daniel founded the Texas Nationalist Movement, an organization dedicated to the political, cultural, and economic independence of Texas. In that time, as the organization’s President, the TNM has grown to become one of the largest political advocacy organizations in Texas and one of the largest independence advocacy organizations in the world. Representing the TNM, Daniel has testified on many pieces of legislation and is a regular fixture at the Capitol during the legislative session. As a result of the success of the TNM, Daniel has become a sought-after expert at conferences and meetings in Texas, the rest of the United States, and internationally on the issue of self-determination.

Bestselling Author
In 2011 he authored Line in the Sand, his first book, which addresses the roots of Texas Nationalism and the practical implications of national self-identity for Texans. In 2018, Miller released TEXIT: Why and How Texas Will Leave The Union, a four-time bestseller and is considered the ultimate guide to Texas becoming a self-governing, independent nation. TEXIT covers the motivations behind the modern movement for Texas independence and lays out a practical path to achieving it.

Personal Life
Daniel traces his first Texas ancestor to a veteran of the Texian Army during the Texas Revolution. He was born and raised in Northeast Texas and resides in Southeast Texas with his wife, Cara. Five of their children live in Texas, and one is currently serving in the Army.