I will have to find out why when I listen to Gov Perry speaking about the legimate concern many Americans have and have had in the past, not just following President Obama's election, about what if, we, one day reach a majority to end the Fouding Fathers project, what if, one day a majority favors a change of regime, a more oppressive central government, as an example. To prevent that to happen, with the Bill of Rights, the choice of a Federation to preserve each state constitution, the Supreme Court, the Branches, the Founding Fathers have made it very difficult to happen, though, what if?

When Gov Perry voices that concern, once more not new, as it has been, is and will be possible and explain why the Fouding Fathers took all these steps to prevent it, when do you decide, based on and what do you do if a majority one day decides to end the individual liberty and responsability system? for a State
When is it justified for a State to say the Founding Fathers project is endangered enough to take this extreme step?
Anyway, why when Gov Perry voices a popular and, looking at it, a healthy answer from the People, "Let's leave and save our State", I understand that the legitimate debate which is not about Texas leaving the Union but is when has Texas the right to discuss that issue should the Fouding Fathers project be endangered, Geraldo understands Gov Perry has joined the "lunatics" (have the secession has a second nature)?
Did I misunderstood or Geraldo did?
Second.
Geraldo adds, soon anyway the debate won't even take place as the majority is about to change in the State.
Does that mean Geraldo thinks the future majority isn't American spirited enough to consider legitimate the use of any means in the debate to fight any narrowing of the Fouding Fathers project of Liberty or like too many does he think the future majority is ready to give up some of it for the short term comfort of a "nanny state" should it be central? relations anbranchesfavouring "the end" oGeraldo thinks