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 *


Hazel picks up key endorsement



With just a couple of weeks to go before the Georgia primaries, insurgent candidate Shane Hazel has picked up a  key endorsement in his bid to unseat liberal Republican Rob Woodall in the Georgia 7th Congressional District.

Hazel, the former Marine Force Reconnaissance member and proven businessman, has picked up the endorsement of the Republican Liberty Caucus. The RLC, also known as “the conscience of the party” endorsed Hazel should come as little surprise. The RLC has a long history of focusing on endorsing liberty-minded candidates, rather than establishment members who have proven themselves to be unreliable when it comes to conservative issues.

The RLC earlier this year likewise endorsed MO Senate Candidate Austin Petersen.

The outpouring of support for insurgent candidates is clear as supporters take to social media to voice their displeasure at the lack of follow through from lawmakers like Woodall during their time in control of both houses of Congress and with Donald Trump in the Oval Office. The failure to repeal Obamacare as well as passage of a massive $1.3 Trillion omnibus bill have angered most voters on the right, resulting in the realization that giving the GOP control of Washington is not enough, they must, in fact, cull the GOP Congressional roster of those who make conservative promises, but vote like leftists.

As my readers have noted I’ve followed several insurgent races across the country. Hazel’s may be the best example of a truly grassroots movement of ordinary citizens fed up with “business as usual” in Washington, and instead want to see real change with a return to Constitutional principles.

In a past article I noted that Hazel and others were not garnering any support from many of the major lobbying groups. In the latest of their disappointing moves, the National Rifle Association chose to endorse Woodall, telling Hazel they preferred to stick with “the devil we know.” Well, the problem with dealing with a devil is sooner or later he’ll betray you. Woodall had bragged previously that he has the lowest score from the NRA of all Republicans in Georgia, and that he was proud of it.

Always a class act, instead of complaining about the NRA’s rather typical move in endorsing establishment candidates, he told me “I will never vote for any legislation that puts people, especially veterans, on a no-buy list without due process. Woodall has voted repeatedly for Feinstein gun control, Fix NICS, against national reciprocity, and for Obama’a 4660 that has put 200,000 veteran on a list denying them their right to bear arms, without due process. Shall not be infringed means exactly that.”

The NRA’s hierarchy can say what they like, but we rank-and-file gun 2nd Amendment advocates don’t vote the NRA line, and I think we’re smart enough to vote for a man who truly cares about liberty, not a man who has proven he doesn’t.

You can learn more about Shane at

Continue Reading


Dear Illinois Conservatives, what is the Repubican Party accomplishing for you?



Excuse me if I come off sounding like Steve Deace. I don’t mean to. However, when I elaborate on how bad the Republican Party of Illinois is, I also offer a solution. My solution is to consider joining the Federalist Party movement. Because honestly, what do you have to lose?

The 2018 Illinois Primary should be a wakeup call as Conservatism suffered defeat after defeat. The only two salvageable victories were Douglas Bennett in the 10th and David Merkle in the 2nd. Both of these candidates are longshots in November. There were also a couple of conservatives who won because they ran unopposed, Jitendra “JD” Diganvker in the 8th and Bill Fawell in the 17th. JD is a longshot, though District 17 isn’t lost yet.

District 3 Fail

Avowed neo-nazi, Author Jones won the nomination because he ran unopposed. This was the biggest headline for the GOP in Illinois. A neo-nazi is now their candidate. What is also highly disappointing is that the Republican Party had a chance to win this race in November. This is the race where the Democrats were engaged in a civil war of sorts. Socialist, Marrie Newman challenged Daniel Lipinski. If Marrie Newman had won, the District may swing red due to Newman’s socialism. But Lipinski held on, likely due to the open primary system. The GOP just sat back and allowed its own defeat in District 3. They failed to step up and challenge Jones. Is there no establishment or leadership there? Leadership would have been fielding a candidate to first ensure that a neo-nazi will not carry the torch. But instead, the GOP facilitated its own defeat.

RINO Victories Rampant

I do applaud Bennett for his victory in the 10th, but I do recognize that he won, in large part, because the two well-funded RINOs saw fit to hammer each other. Through their big money, they lost their appeal through mudslinging and robocalls. The less funded, but more conservative candidate was able to sneak a 259 vote win over the pro-abortion Jeremy Wynes. The other RINO, Sapan Shah was a close third place. But looking at the other races, RINOs came out on top when head to head with a Conservative. Preston Nelson, a strong libertarian, was no match for the RINO incumbent Mike Bost. The more formidable James Marter still lost handily to incumbent Adam Kinzinger. The largely criticized incumbent governor, Bruce Rauner, still prevailed over Jeanne Ives. Bruce Rauner, by the way, signed a sanctuary state law. So come election day in November, leftist will have two of them to vote for. And Conservatives will only vote for a party that does not represent, in their state, a limited government nor the US Constitution.

As stated by Real GOP Illinois

Bruce Rauner was always a liberal. He was never a conservative. We question whether Rauner was ever really a Republican or if he just saw an opportunity to buy the Illinois Republican Party for his own enrichment and the enrichment of his elite friends. Who has profited from Bruce Rauner? Let’s start naming names.

The Illinois GOP has no interest in a limited government. It has no interest in responsible immigration laws. It does not seek to protect the 2nd Amendment. It does not believe in protecting the unborn. How can they? They’re too busy fielding rich leftist candidates to pass on to the loyal opposition to the state’s Democratic majority. Sapan Shah, Jeremy Wynes, John Morrow all rich leftist who infiltrated the GOP ranks to garner the nomination. They failed, but Mike Bost, Adam Kinzinge, Rodney Davis, John Shimkus, are all blatant RINO incumbents representing their respective districts. Then there’s the crooked John Elleson who won the 9th.

Compared to other Blue States

I live in Maryland. I know very well what it’s like to live under a super-majority of Democrats. I know the futility of opposition. But remarkably, the Maryland GOP isn’t all that bad or at least it’s gotten better. Andy Harris, the state’s lone Republican Congressman on the Eastern Shore, is a solid conservative. Governor Larry Hogan is one of the nation’s most popular governors. He has done as well as a conservative seeking reelection in a blue state can do.

In California, there are solid conservatives running. We’ve interviewed them here on NOQ Report. See Erin CruzShastina Sandman, and Dr. Ken Wright. There is also Konstantinos Roditis a Republican but a solid constitutional conservative federalist running for Controller in California.

The Illinois GOP does not have the same interest or ambition as the other blue states. So what is the point of the Illinois GOP? It is incapable of representing and advancing small government conservatism.

A New Party

For Conservatives in Illinois, it’s time for a new party. Part of the Illinois GOP’s issue is that the GOP platform is meaningless to them. The Federalist Party addresses this exact problem

Over time, the Federalist Party will address issues in a way that is very different from other parties. Platforms today are essentially meaningless. There is no accountability for politicians within the parties. They’re able to act any way they wish. As long as they can confuse the electorate during campaign season, their adherence (or lack thereof) to the party’s platform can be disregarded.

They offer an intricate solution that not only allows some dissension but provides transparency. Read more about their solutions here. The goal of the Federalist Party is to prevent the corruption of ideals that has taken place in the Illinois GOP and the Republican Party as a whole. Give it some thought. In the meantime what have you to lose?

Continue Reading

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

NOQ Report Daily






Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.