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.

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 *


Ben Sasse: Neither party has ‘a long-term vision’




Ben Sasse Neither party has a long-term vision

With the GOP losing it’s way and the DNC losing it’s mind, now is the time for a new party paradigm.

As someone who left the Republican party years ago, Sen. Ben Sasse’s (R., Neb.) sentiments on the subject were well received. The emergence of a new conservative, Pro-Liberty party has always been bubbling beneath the surface. While the timing of such considerations is problematic at this point in time so close to the midterms, this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

The problem of moderate Republican Party and populist tendencies.

Let’s face facts, the Republican Party has morphed into a moderate, centrist party with an agenda based on the poison of popularism instead of Conservative principles. In many ways, it’s reflective of the ‘at the moment tactics’ of President Trump. This really shouldn’t be the case, there is a reason the founding fathers created a system of government based on three branches of government. In physics, a plane has to be defined by a minimum of three vectors (i.e. forces). Take away one or two of these vectors and the plane is no longer defined. Such is the case with government as well, take away one or two of these vectors and the system becomes unstable.

To be blunt about what could happen in the near future, if the Democrats succeed in retaking the House of Representatives we could see something far worse than mere impeachment. We could be witness to all manner of ‘bipartisan compromises’ that would only serve to push us further down the slippery slope away from Liberty. The President has an unfortunate tendency to take the word of the last group he consulted, exemplified by his “Take the guns first, go through due process second.” gaff earlier this year. At this point in time we don’t need to compromise, we need to reverse the process and restore Liberty.

We cannot give any more ground.

The Constitutional principles that undergird our freedom are under a full frontal assault by those who try to maintain the pretence of favouring Liberty with the self-labeling as “Liberal”. As much as it is hard to believe, the 1st amendment is under attack on a daily basis along with last bastion of government restraint, the 2nd amendment. Many do not realise that we are dangerously close on the slippery slope to seeing those Liberties disappear forever. We cannot afford any more ‘compromises’ with those out to destroy Liberty on the nation’s Left.

The Democrat’s have become a national Socialist Party.

While the GOP has it’s own issues, the DNC has lost the plot going full socialist. How they think that this is a winning strategy is beyond comprehension. We are over $21 Trillion in debt, not to mention the estimates of over $80 Trillion in unfunded liabilities. Meanwhile they are promising all manner of vote-buying largess without nary a word on how’s it going to be funded. A number of years ago, video raconteur Bill Whittle produced a short dissertation entitled ‘EAT THE RICH!’
in conjunction with mathematical maven ‘Iowahawk’ examining how long the government could be funded by taking ALL the property from the rich of the nation. Even at that time 7 years ago, this type of scheme would have only run the government for a year. Of course, that would have been the end of it since ‘the rich’ would no longer pay any taxes. The bottom line here is that the Left cannot fulfil any of it’s existing grandiose promises, much less add new vote buying schemes to the mix.

The nation’s Socialist-Left won’t be able to fund it’s vote-buying schemes.

In recent days, many of the luminaries of the Left have been asked how they would fund their grandiose schemes of ‘Free’ healthcare, ‘Free’ college, ‘Free’ housing, etc, etc. No serious answers have been forthcoming, only that we are somehow under a moral imperative to provide this largess to everyone in the states and around the world for that matter. The nation’s Left won’t be able to fund it’s promises if it attains power, but it doesn’t seem to care. It is only concerned with gaining power, while the GOP is only concerned with holding onto power.

Where do we go from here?

In many ways it’s a blessing that the nation’s Left has dropped the mask and gone full socialist. That has been obvious for years, and it’s always best to play to one’s strengths. Even though that ‘strength’ is an ideology based on ideas from over 500 years. The left wants to run headlong into a brick wall, who are we to stop them. Those in the DNC unwilling to accept it’s abject failure can #WalkAway to the GOP or they can move over to a new party that is based on rock solid Conservative principles: The Federalist Party.

There is a reason why the United States is the greatest nation on earth. There is a reason why the first experiments in collectivism were tried here and rejected. There is a reason why we are the lone superpower in the world. And there is a reason the Socialist-Left would like to tear it down and replace it with the failed model of the French Revolution.

The founding father’s were learned men, they took the available ideas and crafted a limited government paradigm that has been shown to work over the centuries. We need to restore that best model of governance with a new party, getting back to the time-tested precepts of Liberty.


Continue Reading


Establishing a proper foothold in federalism



Establishing a proper foothold in federalism

While I was away, I had plenty of time to think about federalism. One interesting note is that I did this without having the lens of current events in the way. I was completely away from pretty much all forms of news; if it wasn’t big enough to be talked about by family, I probably missed it.

One of the interesting side-effects of living like this is that my sometimes-random, sometimes-focused thoughts pertaining to federalism were geared towards historical and theoretical federalism. I wasn’t contemplating how a federalist should view Obamacare or gun control. Instead, I was able to apply proper federalist principles to a general perspective. Think of it as a 30,000-foot view.

There were some interesting conclusions and even more interesting questions I’ll go into in the future, but the biggest takeaway is that federalism can only work in modern America if we’re able to get a proper foothold. We’re on a slippery slope with a left-right, liberal-conservative dichotomy that currently holds the nation’s ideologies hostage. Most conservatives believe that federalism applies only to their ideas while most liberals believe federalism is a convenient tool to invoke only when they’re not in power.

The reality is that federalism has very little to do with right versus left, at least as it pertains to decision-making. Let’s look at a basic way to apply federalism generally. Hopefully then we can understand the challenges that can prevent us from finding our foothold. This is not meant to be a scholarly or philosophical look at federalism. It’s just a quick view to set the stage for finding solutions.

The federalist lens

I’ve written in the past that the roots of federalism were based on sharing powers, not making the national government more powerful. In the 18th century, states held the lion’s share of government power so it was necessary for early federalists to push for a stronger central government. Today, the power has shifted unnaturally to favor DC, so a true federalist will embrace taking power away from the central government and distributing it to states, counties, cities, communities, and most importantly to individuals and their families.

With that understood, let’s look at why federalism does not fall within the left-right paradigm that exists in America today. There’s no need to show examples of conservatism championed by federalism because conservatives have generally embraced most tenets of federalism whether they know it or not. However, there are many examples of how leftist ideas also invoke federalism and rightfully so.

One easy example is New York politicians’ desire to give “free education to all.” While conservatives will naturally ask the question of how expensive this “free” idea will become, many are calling on DC to figure out ways to block the attempt altogether. This is 100% against federalist tenets and should not be acceptable. If New York wants to go down that road, it is not DC’s job to stop them. One of the beauties of federalism applied to 50 states is that they should be free to attempt whatever programs their residents desire. If it fails, it is a lesson for other states. If it succeeds, it’s a model upon which others can embrace or improve.

Experimentation allows the states to be like governmental labs. This is a good thing. It applies all the way down (or up, depending on your point of view). Cities should be free to adopt just about anything that does not hinder others. This is a key point because the fear of a free-for-all in governance makes liberals and conservatives alike cringe. Are sanctuary cities acceptable in a federalist model? No. Unless a sanctuary city is able to contain the suspects and criminals they set free, their actions against federal cooperation are not true federalism. Cities cannot be allowed to harm their neighbors based on their actions (or lack of actions). Sanctuary cities are perversions of federalism.

Steps toward federalism

While I get back into the swing of things, there are still many questions I need to answer. One is where the Federalist Party stands, or more specifically where I stand within the Federalist Party itself. Just as with my friends here at NOQ Report who carried on in my absence, I know there were many who continued to build the groundswell for the Federalist Party. Where the party and I stand will be an important piece of information I’ll need before knowing how to proceed.

One thing that does not require any additional information is the realization I came to while on hiatus. For federalism to succeed in America and truly gain a foothold, it MUST be understood. I’m a firm believer that 70% or more of the American population would embrace the tenets of federalism if they understood it properly. Just as a right-leaning gun advocate can be shown how true reciprocity can only be accomplished between states instead of by decree in DC, so too can left-leaning environmentalist can be shown the benefits of localizing environmental protection rather than sinking money into the EPA or (gulp) the Paris accords.

In my downtime, I concluded that a population that does not understand federalism cannot properly embrace it. Conversely, bringing true federalism to light can and will help it gain more supporters because it simply makes sense. Going forward, that will be one of the most important roles I play in the outside world. Championing federalism is the best thing I can do in American politics. It won’t be easy, but if we’re to continue to prosper as a nation, we must wrest power away from DC and back into the hands of the people.

Continue Reading


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
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report




Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report