Connect with us


All the states should be like California and secede



The CalExit effort is getting some attention again, with “Yes, California” proponents pushing a referendum for voters in 2018. Good, let them do it. States either have rights under the Constitution, or they don’t. This issue goes back all the way to 1861, when eleven states voted to secede. Obviously, it didn’t work out too well for them.

But maybe California is on to something. Perhaps all the states should secede.

States, and the people, owe Washington D.C. nothing.

Federalism is the answer

California’s voters certainly have the right to vote for secession. They can withdraw their representatives and senators from Congress, and declare the New California Republic to be a sovereign nation. They can seek de jure recognition in international forums. But the de facto situation won’t change. California is part of the United States. The federal government owns over 45 percent of its land; military bases and other federal facilities won’t go away or surrender to the new government.

What will happen is people will vote with their feet–either moving into or out of the state based on their preferred type of government. And that’s good, because that’s how federalism is supposed to work.

The nation was founded on the principle that if you didn’t like the government you have, citizens are given two options. 1) They can vote in a new government, or 2) they can move. If California rejects President Trump and his administration, they can fight with every ounce of political will they have against it. (Pro tip: withdrawing from Congress is not the way to do that.)

A plebiscite or referendum for secession is a great way to establish a geographical and political boundary where citizens outside the state are aligned with the federal government, and citizens inside the state are aligned against it. It makes our country more governable when the law and principles of federalism are tested and managed in this way, and it could possibly spread to other states.

Then liberals would give up their silly quest for sameness and one-size-fits all.

If all states seceded

Think about what would happen if all 50 states seceded. The union would cease to exist except as a voluntary association of sovereign states, that send representatives to the federal government in a cooperative effort to support a unified order, but not the same law for every state. If all states seceded, then citizens would have to decide where they wanted to live, and how they wanted to be governed.

If the process went like CalExit might go, it would change nothing de facto. But it would reset the political pendulum in America back toward the original plan–a collection of sovereign states with a limited federal government. It would be a strong federal government in the sense that the military, diplomatic and economic power of these United States would be felt around the world. But it would not be a unity–a single national government with districts as states owing fealty to Washington D.C.

States, and the people, owe Washington D.C. nothing. It’s a city built on a swamp where representatives of the several states meet and cooperate. It’s not supposed to be the nexus of power in the country–but it is.

Thank you Vladimir Putin

It’s ironic that the Yes, California #CalExit cause may have Russia as one of its biggest proponents. In fact, Russia seems to have contributed to the cause in real and meaningful ways. Good. They unwittingly strengthened America instead of achieving their goal to weaken it. The surest way to weaken America is to move toward statism and a tyrannical central government, with dissidents scattered among the various territories under the thumb of the all-powerful central government. The Russians should know this, but they’ve been a monolithic state for so long that it apparently never occurred to them.

So thank you, Vladimir Putin, for helping to make #CalExit a real effort that may very well find its way onto ballots in 2018.

Is Russia Behind a Secession Effort in California? – The Atlantic’s easy to imagine some on the alt-right preferring that future, even as most liberals and progressives would recognize it as a catastrophe. A post-exit California would not be a stable political entity, and the pro-secession campaign’s arguments don’t pass the laugh test. Louis Marinelli and Marcus Evans were both registered Republicans two years ago when they formed what is now known as Yes California, a homegrown separatist movement.

California: please secede, and bye!

John Stossel wrote that secession doesn’t scare him. It doesn’t scare me either. If Calfornia leaves the Union, I say let the other 49 states go with it, and then let them all come back together the way it’s supposed to be. And let the sovereign states entice those who agree with their form of government and social policies to move in, and let those who disagree move out. Texas was settled with Americans because Mexico paid them to come (and then betrayed them at The Alamo). The west was settled because the federal government paid settlers to move west.

Catalonia? ‘Calexit’? Let ’em go! | TribLIVE why do so many people now see secession as a terrible thing? The Spanish government said they must not even vote, sent police to shut down polling places and beat protesters. Local governments can be more responsive to constituents’ needs.

Why wouldn’t that work today? In fact it does. Look at the mad rush to kiss the feet of Jeff Bezos so Amazon would build its second headquarters in various cities. Boston has practically prostrated itself–I wouldn’t be surprised if they arranged for Russian brides for every Seattle-based Amazon single male employee just to tilt the scales.

There’s nothing wrong with that, by the way. There’s also nothing wrong with saying to people you don’t like: if you don’t like it, move. If California tells gun owners that the Second Amendment doesn’t matter in Sacramento, then fine–Georgia can tell gun controllers that they’re welcome to leave if they don’t like citizens packing. If all the states secede, the more power the people will have.

Of course, a disarmed California might not be a place anyone wants to live when the criminals take over, but, again, the de facto state of things is unlikely to change–only our perceptions.

Adios California | iPatriot citizens (and illegal aliens) of California want to secede from the union. They want their sovereignty and we want freedom from their insanity. Per usual, those of the liberal progressive left who want to become their own country see only the good points of being a nation of their own.

Final Thoughts

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with California voting to secede, or declaring its borders open, etc. In point of fact, if they withdrew their representatives from Washington and did that, within a year they’d be begging to be let back in (why would we let them?). In reality, there’s no way California could really exit and remain viable, not with the political climate out there. They’d be bankrupt in no time.

But the perception of secession is powerful and needs to be elevated to in the political discourse of this nation. Let all 50 states secede, then we’ll see social warriors put their walking shoes on. We’ll be more geographically, politically, and socially aligned with our neighbors. We will have the government we prefer, not the one forced upon us. That’s how this nation was supposed to work in the first place.

+Jesseb Shiloh is not-so-new to blogging. He enjoys things that most don't and doesn't mind and occasional nap. And he's never ambiguous nor contradictory most of the time. Find him on Twitter.

Continue Reading
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Doug Olson

    October 19, 2017 at 12:28 pm

    An interesting article that can be summed up as “out of ignorance comes federalism”. Those liberals that are threatening to secede are really practicing a form of federalism… but don’t tell them. It is interesting that the left only sees federalism when they do not like the person in power but they are all for centralizing power when they have the control. Of course the GOP is the same way, to an extent. Yet neither party knows that proper federalism is the only way to have the “utopias” they seek.

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

An open letter to Sen. Lamar Alexander, US Senate on the nomination of Chai Feldblum



The Honorable Lamar Alexander

Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions committee

United States Senate

CC United States Senators

March 17, 2018


Dear Senator Alexander,

It has come to my attention that President Trump has re-nominated Chai Feldblum to her position as commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This news has brought me grave concern.

On behalf of the American people, it is up to you and the rest of the Senate to remedy this unfortunate situation.

As you are aware, the EEOC deals with cases of workplace discrimination; having the power to enforce federal laws, investigate discrimination complaints, regulate and pursue legal charges against private businesses, and influence public opinion. It is imperative that any federal agency entrusted with such powers be steered by the conscientious counsel of unbiased leadership.

A former college basketball coach once said, “Offense is not equal opportunity.” However, since her appointment by former President Obama in 2010, Ms. Feldblum has exploited her position at the EEOC to offensively further her own fanatical advocacy goals at the expense of religiously-oriented American citizens, the Bill of Rights be damned.

Religious liberty, inviolable and protected from governmental infringement by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, is richly ingrained in our country’s values, having been secured by the blood of our ancestors. In fact, religious liberty, often referred to by the Founders as freedom of conscience, was considered by early Americans to be so precious that, even in the midst of America’s fight for independence, conscience objections were considered sacrosanct.

Consider the words of America’s first President, George Washington, in a letter to Benedict Arnold during America’s Revolutionary War:

“While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the conscience of others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to Him only in this case are they answerable.”

For Chai Feldblum, however, religious freedom must be subjugated with the full force of the government’s ugly fist.

She is, in a word, tyrannical.

Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines tyranny as “a rigorous [strict] condition imposed by some outside agency or force,” as imposed by a tyrant.

A tyrant is defined as “one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power.”

Ms. Feldblum has made several deeply troubling statements that betray her tyrannical intentions, wholly at odds with America’s founding principles:

  • “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win… Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner (emphasis mine).”
  • “I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if ‘pockets of resistance’ to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people (emphasis mine).”

Ms. Feldblum’s seditious statements are in dramatic contrast to what Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1774, in Emblematic Representations:

“The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy (emphasis mine)”

In addition, Ms. Feldblum’s thesis on the proper role of government is unequivocally incompatible with the words spoken by President Thomas Jefferson during his first inaugural address, 1801:

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”

Chai Feldblum’s offensive advocacy through the EEOC is so extreme and outside of Constitutional bounds that, in 2012, the usually divided Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously against Feldblum’s EEOC attempt to void the “Ministerial Exemption,” which allows leeway for religious organizations to carry out routine, religiously-related matters of hiring and terminating employees.

While Ms. Feldblum claims to represent the LGBTQ+ community, she speaks only for a small, yet loud portion of the demographic; one comprised almost entirely of radical LGBTQ+ activists.

In truth, Ms. Feldblum’s fanatical, extremist, ideologically-driven agenda only serves to marginalize a significant portion of sexual minorities, in addition to women and countless Americans of religious orthodoxy.

Ignoring the conservative, sexual minorities who disapprove of the forced subjugation of religious Americans, Ms. Feldblum propagates stereotypes of the various people she claims to represent, and actively encourages neighbors to go to war with neighbors.

Feldblum insists on a “zero-sum” game, where religious Americans and members of the LGBTQ+ community are incapable of living peaceably side-by-side. As the architect of former President Obama’s Transgender executive order, Feldblum further victimizes traumatized women and children, insisting they must tolerate an unsafe existence, as grown men are ushered into their locker rooms and bathrooms in the name of “progress.” Feldblum insists on subjugating religious, yet same-sex attracted business owners in the private market, drastically hindering their pursuit of happiness through economic independence. Feldblum insists that all LGBTQ+ Americans think as she does.

Ms. Feldblum is a tyrant; wholly unworthy of another five years at the helm of the EEOC.

Speaking on the sacredness of religious liberty in America, Samuel Adams stated, August 1, 1776:

“Driven from every other corner of the earth freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.”

The responsibility, Senator Alexander, now rests with you and the Senate to protect religious liberty as vigorously and as confidently as our Founding Fathers.

If you fail to perform this duty, this great test of your legacy as one of the leaders of the free world, may the words of Samuel Adams haunt you for the remainder of your days:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”


Most sincerely,


Paige Rogers, Tennessee

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Why Principles Matter – 2nd Amendment Edition.




Ghost Guns prove that gun control can never work as promised

There are times when one feels compelled to write on certain subjects without knowing the reason. Consequently, this was begun a few days ago in anticipation of some occurrence. Then came the infamous utterance of President Trump to ‘Take the guns first, go through due process second’. This was followed up by the stomach-churning video of that meeting with Senator Dianne Feinstein giddy at the prospect of Trump betraying his core base in banning almost all firearms.

Anyone with a logical mind should be able to see what is going to happen next. Whatever measures passed under the auspices of Trump will not solve the problem – because this was Never the intent. Soon enough, another massacre will take place, the rhetoric will be reset to zero with a repetition of the same process. Demands will be repeated to “Do something”!

Once again President Loose cannon will blithely advocate parceling away our God-given rights as a sacrifice to ‘Bipartisanship’. The precedent will have been set for another round of attacks against our common sense human rights. The same meetings will take place, with as yet another denigration of our rights. At some point, it will occur to Trump that the nation’s socialist Left doesn’t have his or Liberty’s interests at heart. But by that time the damage will already have been done.

Let’s make this perfectly Clear: The 2nd amendment is non-negotiable.

It is not to be trifled away like Christmas hams for the sake of a pleasant photo-op. The Bill of Rights has a two-fold purpose, it restrains the government while protecting the liberty of world’s smallest minority – the individual. Each one of it’s carefully crafted amendments limit the collective power of the mob against a minority of one. The truly Liberal founding fathers knew that freedom is diminished with the expansion of the government:

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” Thomas Jefferson

This crucial point is perfectly exemplified with the 2nd amendment, for each denigration of this common sense Human and Civil Right has a corresponding expansion of the power of the government. It is an understatement to declare that this Civil Right is the most important. People cannot exercise their other rights without having the means to defend themselves from oppression.

This has been proven many times down through history with the Hungarian revolution against the oppressive USSR in 1956 to the massive daily protests last year against the Socialist regime of Nicholas Maduro in Venezuela. From the Prague Spring to Tiananmen Square, if the people do not have the right and means to defend themselves, they do not have rights of free-speech, free-press or every other right.

This is a debate over Liberty, not about inanimate objects.

The people who falsely fashion themselves as being ‘Liberal’ have been quite busy exploiting this current “Serious Crisis” to the hilt. They’ve dropped the toxic phrase ‘Gun control’ for the fascist friendly phrases ‘Gun reform’ or ‘Gun safety’.

Make no mistake, this isn’t about ‘safety’, ’Gun law reform’ or a number of other deceptive terms. This is about Liberty Control or Liberty reform. Yes, you read that correctly: Liberty instead of the word ‘gun’. Unlike the national Socialist-Left, we are going to use the words that precisely define the issue at stake. Guns are nothing but inanimate objects of metal, wood or plastic. These items have no inherent Civil or Human rights, they are only the means to secure Liberty. Rights can only be possessed by individuals – not a hunk of iron, thus the real meaning of this debate.

It’s been said that “He who defines the terms, wins the debate”. The gun grabber Left would love this to be about inanimate objects: guns, or even the undefined term “Assault Weapons”. Those who are supposedly ‘Liberal’ don’t want this debate properly framed as one over Liberty – because then they would lose the argument.

One last point: The Left has clearly shown themselves to be the enemy of Liberty.

The Left has made this perfectly clear with their moves to eviscerate the most important right, the first freedom if you will, along with other attacks against the 1st and other amendments. The right of self-defence is the lynchpin for all the other rights, take that away and the rest will be in jeopardy. Therefore, it should be patently obvious the Left does not care for the cause of liberty in the form of the 2nd amendment or any others. They are following in the blood-soaked footsteps of collectivist of the past who have used the vestiges of democracy to attain power and then ejected them when convenient.

It should also be clear that they do not deserve the self-lauding approbation of being ‘Liberal’. Liberty and Liberal both have the same root word origin in Latin as meaning freedom, it should be clear that they no longer fit this overly complimentary term. We will not win this argument playing the rules set down by the national Socialist Left. And we will not win if we don’t stick to our founding principles.

Continue Reading


Vice says women shouldn’t have guns



On Friday, Vice’s Twitter account tweeted out a previous Vice article from June 14, 2016, entitled, “A Very Incomplete List of People Gun Rights Activists Think Should Be Armed.”

The brief article is a lamentation of the belief of Second Amendment advocates, specifically “the NRA and other right-wing groups,” that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

The tweet (below) reads, “The NRA wants to put guns in the hands of: Schoolteachers, Preachers, Anyone who goes into a nightclub, Women …just to name a few.”

According to author Harry Cheadle – who evidently believes that women shouldn’t be afforded Constitutional protections or exercise our God-given human rights – “the goal [of 2A advocates] is to make sure everyone is prepared to engage in a shootout at all times.”

“And by everyone, I mean everyone,” he emphasized.

So, just who, exactly, does Vice believe should be considered prohibited from exercising his/her Second Amendment rights?

“Here is a surely incomplete list of people that gun rights activists believe should be packing heat. Once all of these categories of Americans are all carrying guns on them at all times, presumably we will finally be safe…”

The listed include (as worded the article), but are not limited to:


-Gay people


-Holocaust victims

-Some people who commit domestic violence


-Every black person in America

-Pilots on planes

-People on the terrorist watch list

Yes, ladies, you read that right. A gun in the hand of a woman is as great a risk as possible terrorists. I can imagine Mr. Cheadle must be petrified at the sight of a woman behind the wheel of a car!


Yes, Mr. Cheadle is apparently quite fearful of women, Holocaust victims, and black Americans, among others.

Well, as you might expect, this didn’t go over too well on Twitter. Here are just a few of the (often snark-filled) reactions.

And, in case you are wondering about my own response to Vice’s tweet… I joined the NRA.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily






Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.