Connect with us

Federalists

All the states should be like California and secede

Published

on

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

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/is-russia-behind-a-secession-effort-in-california/517890/It’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

http://triblive.com/opinion/featuredcommentary/12824630-74/catalonia-calexit-let-em-goSo 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

http://ipatriot.com/adios-california/The 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
Advertisement
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 *

Federalists

How to debate your political enemies… and win

Published

on

How to debate your political enemies and win

It’s no secret that we live in a world of political division. Not only are liberals at war with conservatives, but both sides of the political spectrum are at war with themselves.

While my preference is unity, it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen anytime soon, judging by social media. Since that’s the case, then people need to at least, learn how to debate effectively.

Here are four things to remember before getting into your next political debate:

1. Stop letting your opponent control the language

Until pregnant, pro-choice women start having fetus showers on a regular basis, it’s not a “fetus”. It’s a baby.

Until guns jump off the table, run down the street, and start shooting people on their own, it’s not “gun violence”. It’s just violence.

When you let your opponent control the language, you let them control the debate. You allow them the opportunity to soften their position through less controversial verbiage, making their position sound almost reasonable.

Call a spade a spade. Catering to politically correct double-speak is a form of soft tyranny.

2. Know your opponent and their tactics, then call them on it

I learned this one watching Ben Shapiro take on Piers Morgan in an interview regarding the 2nd Amendment. Ben had researched Piers’ tactics, and at the beginning of the interview, called him out on them, pointing out that Morgan has a tendency to resort to name-calling vitriol, ad hominem attacks, and attempts to paint his opponent as low intellect Neanderthals, whenever he ran out of talking points to support his position. Shapiro went on to say that he trusted that Morgan wouldn’t engage in those same tactics in their debate.

Morgan was instantly taken aback, batted his eyelashes innocently, and went into full denial mode. The interview went smoothly for a while, with Morgan refraining from his typical tactics, but true to form, reverted to his normal attacks when Shapiro had him backed into a corner, giving him the ammo he needed to point out that he was correct in his initial assessment of Morgan’s tactics.

I’ve implemented this strategy in many debates, and without fail, it’s been effective.

3. Don’t go on defense

It’s inevitable. In any debate, on any topic, your opponent is going to spend the bulk of their time, telling you why your position is wrong and why you’re a bad person for holding it. All too often, I see good people take this bait and retreat into a mode of defending themselves, rather than defending their position, or going on offense against their opponents position.

It’s a natural reaction to try and defend your character, morality or ethics when they come under attack. However, the second you do, you’ve just handed the debate to your opponent.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve been called a “gun nut that doesn’t care about children”. Until I learned the tactic of not taking that bait, my reaction was usually “I am not a gun nut and I love kids”. Now, my reaction is “If being a proponent of the basic, human right to self defense, not only for me, but for the protection of children, makes me a ‘nut,’ so be it. What I think is nutty is being opposed to those things.”

Guess which one of those reactions is more effective in winning the debate.

4. Don’t allow deflection

When people are losing a debate, they tend to drift into side topics. It’s not unusual for a pro-abortion advocate to drift into healthcare as a whole, or for a gun control advocate to drift into government provided “safety”.

Don’t follow people down these rabbit holes. Drag them right back out, and force them to stay on the topic of hand. The moment you start following them is the moment you’ve given them control to lead you to separate topics, control the debate, and muddy the waters of the original topic.

Debate is a healthy thing when done right. It’s done right when the right strategies are applied. So engage, but engage to win. I assume your position is worth it.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

GOP plays pro-life card in an election year bluff for votes

Published

on

GOP plays pro-life card in an election year bluff for votes

With another year of failure behind them and a midterm election ahead, the GOP is busy doing as it always does under such circumstances, squeezing a boatload of bills through Congress designed to give the appearance that they’re keeping their word to the conservative base of the party.

An ace-in-the-hole often played by the Gang Of Phonies when they are desperate for our cash and our votes is the pro-life card, which explains their plan to hold a show vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act (BAASA) later this week.

If passed, BAASA would allegedly protect infants delivered alive after a failed abortion which begs the question, if a failed abortion delivers a live baby and a successful abortion delivers a dead baby, isn’t abortion the very definition of premeditated murder?

Premeditated Murder: The term that is used to describe a murder that was planned in advance and was carried out willfully. – Black’s Law Dictionary

In 2002–strangely enough, another midterm election year–George W. Bush signed a similar bill called the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA). While the bill claimed to provide legal protection for an infant born alive after a failed abortion, BAIPA failed to provide penalties or enforcement mechanisms to punish violators.

Without those provisions, the law was meaningless and made it possible for a baby killer like Kermit Gosnell–who routinely murdered babies by severing their spinal cords with scissors through the back of the neck or drowning them in toilets after being born alive–to become a millionaire.

While it can be argued that BAASA might do some good, this is simply an election year ploy that falls woefully short of doing what’s necessary to end the abortion holocaust.

For example, there has been no advance of the “most pro-life platform in GOP history,” which included commitments to defund Planned Parenthood, ban dismemberment abortions, and pass a Human Rights Amendment to the Constitution. In fact, Trump and the GOP actually supported the abortion industry by passing three spending bills in 2017 that fully funded Planned Parenthood.

As a supporter of the Federalist Party and the Convention of States project, I see this charade as more proof that conservatives need to leave the GOP and join these movements. Only by reigning in the federal government and returning power to the states will we bring an end to this holocaust.

What difference could it make? Well, Indiana State Rep. Curt Nisly just introduced a bill that would completely ban abortion in the state. In Roe v. Wade America, his chances of success are somewhere between slim and none. But in Constitutional America, where “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” NIsly’s bill would likely succeed.

BAASA may or may not become law, but it’s nothing more than a lame attempt by RINOs to save their jobs. The lives of the unborn deserve better than this.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Will Trump and the GOP ever defund Planned Parenthood?

Published

on

Will Trump and the GOP ever defund Planned Parenthood

Despite claims that 2017 was a “tough year,” Planned Parenthood still managed to have a very profitable year according to a just-released annual report.

After murdering 321,384 unborn babies still in their mother’s womb at their so-called clinics–occasionally selling their body parts on the black market–and receiving nearly $544 million in taxpayer-funded subsidies, Planned Parenthood was able to report an increase in its profits of nearly $21 million despite shutting down 32 centers last year.

According to Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood manager who currently runs an organization designed to help abortion workers get out of the baby-killing business (And Then There Were None), the report proves what we already knew: Planned Parenthood is a political movement, not a women’s healthcare organization. As noted by WorldTribune.com, data contained within the report supports Johnson’s conclusion.

  • The organization’s birth control services continued to drop in the past year. According to its 2016-2017 annual report, contraception services were 2,701,866 – four percent less than 2015-2016.
  • The annual report also shows the number of prenatal services once again dropping – this year to 7,762 – a 17 percent decline from the 9,419 performed the year before. In 2014-2015, Planned Parenthood claimed 17,419 prenatal services performed.
  • While Planned Parenthood performed 3,677,503 sexually transmitted infection (STI) tests, and 706,903 HIV tests over the past year, the organization performs no mammograms but lists 336,614 manual “breast exams.”

During his 2016 campaign, Trump’s position regarding Planned Parenthood changed depending on the day of the week–or Ivanka’s agenda–as he defended the organization for the “good things” it did for women’s health while claiming that abortion was a “small part” of their business operation.

Abby Johnson shot down Trump’s conclusion in a Newsmax interview at the time.

“My message to Donald Trump… [is] nothing Planned Parenthood does is for the greater good of women. Every single service they provide leads back to abortion.

“So why do they provide contraceptive services to women? Because they know that eventually that contraceptive will fail; 54 percent of women who have abortions were using contraception at the time they got pregnant.

“They know that method is going to fail and because they’ve already developed a relationship with that woman then that woman will come back to Planned Parenthood whenever that method did fail and they will be able to sell her on an abortion.

“Why do they provide STD services? Because they care about eradicating STDs? No, because they want to have that first point of contact with a person who is participating in high-risk sexual behavior.

“Because they know that that person has a greater chance of having an unplanned pregnancy and that’s a person they can sell an abortion to. Every single service leads back to abortion.” (emphasis mine)

Candidate Trump wrote a letter in September, 2016 to a group of pro-life leaders stating that he was “committed to … Defunding Planned Parenthood as long as they continue to perform abortions, and re-allocating their funding to community health centers that provide comprehensive health for women.”

Unfortunately, President Trump–who warned America that he would be different once he became president–agreed to a budget deal with Democrats that funds Planned Parenthood into Fiscal Year 2018, which began Oct. 1. It was the third spending deal Trump signed as president that continues federal funding for the abortion group.

The current extension on that deal expires two weeks from tomorrow and Democrats have a long list of demands to be met in exchange for their vote on a new budget. Also, as we witnessed during the Obamacare repeal debates, the GOP has demonstrated a disgusting willingness to abandon the unborn in order to appease Democrats.

With Trump’s track record of near-schizophrenia when it comes to defunding Planned Parenthood, and with the spineless GOP more concerned about keeping their positions than with keeping their promises, the odds look pretty good that Planned Parenthood will be reporting about another banner year 12 months from now.

Time will tell if the American taxpayer will continue footing the bill for this American Holocaust.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.