A brand new blog each and every day. Well, not always. But we have to have our daily constitutional to keep us going in defense of liberty.
|Posted by richardmoore on February 10, 2017 at 10:30 AM|
Posted by Richard Moore
Feb. 10, 2017
There are five extensive and fatal problems with President Trump’s so-called travel ban, his executive order that bars refugees from entering the U.S for 120 days and most citizens of seven majority Muslim nations — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia — for three months.
Here are the problems, in order of ascending importance: the executive order is bad politics; it will not protect us; it is illegal; it is unconstitutional; and, most important, it continues the imperialist foreign policy of George W. Bush and Barack Obama and harms innocent people.
That the executive order is primarily about politics is without question. The president isn’t really targeting Muslims or Muslim-majority nations; he is simply pandering to a perceived constituency that he thinks wants him to get tough on terrorism.
They do, of course. His supporters want responsible vetting and secure borders — count me among them — but most voters are simply tired of Washington gimmickry, and most people know intuitively that this temporary ban, targeting those really evil professionals, tourists, and students, is designed for their ideological consumption and not for their physical protection. Even the refugee ban is temporary, for Heaven’s sake.
Even more important, when it comes time to cast ballots in 2018 and 2020, American workers in the heartland aren’t going to be letting any travel ban guide their vote.
Ultimately, Trump and the GOP will be judged by their ability to create jobs and revive the economy. They will be judged by the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Small business owners will judge them on tax reform and the regulatory environment.
This travel-ban nonsense is bad politics because it has distracted Trump from his economic agenda, which is to shrink the size of government, reduce imbecilic business regulations, and jettison multinational corporate and globalist trade initiatives that have devastated the heartland.
Instead, the GOP is spending its days banning innocent people from the country and putting a muzzle on Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
You can talk about terrorism all you want, and it is important, but the blue-collar worker in Wisconsin wants to know where her prosperity is. What's important to him is whether he has a job, not whether there is duct tape on Warren's mouth. The prosperity, the jobs, happen to where the votes are.
The incomparable Matt Drudge put it best on Twitter the other day in two tweets.
Tweet 1: “No Obamacare repeal, tax cuts! But Republicans vote to shut Warren? Only know how to be opposition not lead! DANGER.”
Tweet 2: “Republican party should be sued for fraud. NO discussion of tax cuts now. Just lots of crazy. Back to basics, guys!”
Danger indeed. Cut this crap and get back to serious work.
Second, and more troubling, the travel ban will have absolutely no effect on keeping the country safe. Consider that in the 15 years since 9/11, as Charles Krauthammer pointed out, not one national from any of those seven nations has attacked the U.S.
With such a record, could we not put in place better vetting measures — which are reasonable, after all, and shouldn’t take that long — without disrupting the lives of tens of thousands of people?
hird, and even more troubling, the travel ban is illegal. This is an easy one. A 1965 amendment to the nation’s Immigration and Nationalization Act bans entry discrimination on the basis of national origin. This is an entry ban based on national origin; it is illegal.
Of course, in his war against the region, Obama signed into law a bill exempting those who had visited certain countries of concern, including these seven, from the Visa Waiver program, which relieves certain aliens from visa requirements. In doing so, Andrew McCarthy argues, Obama and Congress were expressly discriminating based on country of origin and that overrides the 1965 statutory provision.
It’s an argument but a weak one. Forcing travelers to comply with visa requirements is substantively different from denying all entry privileges for travelers from those nations.
One can also argue that the president, as commander in chief, can act in a way that supersedes the federal provision, but that is wholly dependent on an immediate national security threat and such a threat does not exist, given the lack of attacks or indications of attacks.
All of which brings us to the constitutional question, and this is even more important yet. The executive order is surely unconstitutional but not for the reasons many people think.
Critics cite violations of First Amendment or due process rights, but, frankly, I reject the belief that non-citizens have rights under the Constitution of the United States, though activist courts disagree. That’s nothing but the globalist wolf all dressed up in sheep’s clothing.
Ultimately, I think the coming originalist court will agree. Our Founders wrote our constitution to enshrine the rights of Americans and to serve as a beacon for all those who admire those rights. They can establish those rights in their own nations, or they can choose to live otherwise. They can also become citizens here.
But what they can’t do is claim rights reserved to the people of the United States when they are not the people of the United States. To say otherwise is to demean nationalist identity as meaningless, or worse, as racist, when it is not.
It is to say to those who come here that they do not have to become citizens of our nation to receive the benefits of citizenship. But conversely and logically, it also means they can, through the use of those benefits, assert rights into our political system that we don’t recognize or deny rights we do recognize, such as the right to be free from discrimination based on sex or religious belief.
None of this is to say this nation should not respect non-citizens and treat them the way it would treat its own people. But to confer the legal rights of citizenship to noncitizens robs our citizens of their distinctive legal legitimacy.
It does more. It robs them of their social traditions and political character. It renders unique and self-chosen social and political contracts null and void. It strips people of their cultural identity, which is often one of the few sources of collective memory and pride that minority communities have.
Once, the Left understood this, and that is why it stood for the rights of national self-determination in such places as northern Ireland and Palestine. It understood that movements of national self-determination are often the bulwark against imperialism and are critical to the preservation of self-identity and thus of individual freedom.
So I don’t grieve for the loss of constitutional rights that don’t exist in the first place.
But the executive order is unconstitutional — and significantly so — because, if such an order is to become the effective law of the land, then Congress should change the immigration law, and Trump should have to sign it and make it so.
Trump’s sweeping executive order to block refugees and curtail entry defies federal law in the same way that Barack Obama’s orders to relax immigration enforcement and to delay deportation of illegal immigrants defied the law.
In testimony before Congress, Georgetown law professor Jonathan Turley, a liberal who supported Obama in 2008, raised warnings about what he saw as Obama’s illegal executive actions, even though Turley supported the merits of those actions.
“When a president claims the inherent power of both legislation and enforcement, he becomes a virtual government unto himself,” Turley said. “He is not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system; he becomes the very danger that the constitution was designed to avoid.”
As Bush before him, as Obama before him, Trump with this executive order is moving dangerously close to becoming the very danger the constitution was designed to avoid.
So only if Congress has the courage to do so should such a ban be passed. Who among us thinks that would be their intent?
And that brings us to the most troubling issue of all, that this travel ban appears to continue the imperialist foreign policy of George W. Bush and Barack Obama and their predecessors, a foreign policy Donald Trump vowed to disavow. That foreign policy is a direct threat to those peoples’ rights of national self-determination.
That is to say, it is not so much about banning Muslims as it is about regime change and nation-building. As Dr. Ron Paul has pointed out, look at those seven countries and you’ll find one thing in common that other majority Muslim nations not named in the order don’t share: The U.S. military establishment has targeted them for take down.
In the last year of his administration, Obama rained down more than 26,000 bombs, mostly on those seven nations, creating ever more destruction and death, not to mention waves of refugees. The wars of Bush and the bombs of Obama have murdered thousands and thousands of innocent people. The wars of Bush and the bombs of Obama have destroyed those nations’ infrastructure to the point that there is barely running water for most. The wars of Bush and the bombs of Obama have left millions homeless and driven hundreds of thousands from their lands.
The leftist media chose not to report these horrific facts during Obama’s tenure; it chose not to present Obama as the warmonger he was.
Put simply, that Trump bombed Yemen and now bans a refugee population that this nation largely created only continues an immoral foreign policy aimed at exterminating the rights of national self-determination in those seven nations.
If you don’t believe it, just ask why the ban didn’t include Turkey, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, majority Muslim nations all, and either safe havens for terrorists or benefactors of terrorist campaigns.
We need good and better vetting in the U.S. We need to keep ourselves safe from terrorism. But we don’t need political smokescreens to do it. We don’t need to strand refugees in hellish limbo to do it. We don’t need to disrupt the lives of tens of thousands of productive and innocent people to do it.
Remember, the establishment lives as a chameleon. Its colors change according to the situation.
In Bush’s day, we attacked the region in the name of avenging 9/11 and then in the name of oil and finally in the name of exacting retribution for daddy. But the result and the government’s motive were the same, unconscionable deadly wars, destabilization incubating terrorism, and regime change.
In Obama’s day, we placed our hope and rhetoric in an Arab spring and in the liberation of an entire region from tinpot dictators. But the result and the government’s motive were the same, unconscionable deadly wars, destabilization incubating terrorism, regime change, and carnage.
In Trump’s early days, we hear the chants of protecting our nation from Islamic terrorism. Islamic terrorism is a real thing. We should protect ourselves.
But so far, all we see, in the travel ban and in more bombings, is the same establishment, the same result, the same government motive: more unconscionable war, more destabilization incubating ever more terrorism, and more regime change.
The time has come to finally stop it.
|Posted by richardmoore on January 18, 2017 at 12:35 PM|
Posted by Richard Moore
January 18, 2017
Today, Donald Trump is being sworn in as the 45th president of the United States, and we should take the time to pause and mark it together as fellow citizens of the greatest country on Earth.
To be sure, we seem a bit tattered and frayed around the edges, like a flag whipped by the wind and storm of battle fire, but, like the flag, our resolve and determination and patriotism still flies, and flies resolutely.
While many people are espousing doom and gloom about the country’s current state of polarization, the truth is, we’ve endured and survived far worse times as a divided nation set upon itself.
Historically, we are usually more divided than we are united, in part because of our pronounced individualism. Americans don’t like to conform or comply for conformance or compliance sake, as a rule.
The nation was not even a hundred years old when the Civil War erupted, a bloody affair that claimed the lives of at least 620,000 American soldiers and perhaps as many as 750,000. Talk about polarization.
One of the core issues of that war — states rights versus federal power — remains at the heart of American divisions today. Our political acorns don’t fall very far from the constitutional tree.
The Civil War remains the most extreme test of our unity as a nation, and the nation survived.
In more modern times, the Vietnam War sparked the so-called days of rage in American cities and on college campuses across the land. In those days the nightly news would feature little icons spread across a map to depict the locations of the latest riots.
It seemed that most of the time there were more riot icons than states, and pundits bemoaned the shredding of the American social fabric.
But the war ended; the nation survived.
In the 1970s, President Richard Nixon became the first president in history to resign; he would surely have been impeached and convicted had he not voluntarily stepped down.
Many feared Nixon might try to stage a coup d’etat to stay in power, though there’s no evidence he ever thought of doing so. Still, that the thought circulated so widely among Americans shows how profoundly distressed people were then about the state of the nation.
In the end, there was no coup; there was a resignation; the nation survived and afterwards even thrived.
Truth be told, American freedom has never been an easily won or kept thing. As a famous song puts it, every generation has to win it again.
And every generation has won it again. We have survived depressions and assassinations, world wars and natural disasters and interment camps. We have survived lousy presidents, too, and we have thrived.
On this Inauguration Day, we believe this nation shall continue to survive, and we believe we will once again thrive.
To be sure, America is facing grave threats. To some it’s Islamic terrorism and globalist-driven income inequality; to others, it is climate change and racism, as well as gender and sexuality injustice. To still others, it’s the Russians.
Almost everyone believes the nation is in deep crisis; that we cannot agree about what the crisis is could be the biggest crisis of all.
Then, too, as Donald Trump assumes the presidency, about half the nation agrees with his agenda and world view, while about half the nation detests both him and his policies.
That’s significant because the new president has not given anyone any reason to believe he isn’t going to do what he said during the campaign he would do, and that is implement an agenda of radical change. Much of it will come in the next 100 days.
So there are going to be new days of rage straight ahead.
Much of it will be hyperbolic and it will sound threatening, especially given the media’s preference for sensationalism and scandal over policy stories.
As in the past, though, we believe Americans can and will cut through the manufactured drama on both sides, and grasp organically what the president’s policies mean to them, and whether those policies are helping them or hurting them. If they are not satisfied, they will lend an ear to the opposition.
This is always how Americans overcome the very worst of our many crises. We embrace our unique American individualism, and listen to the voice of our inner adviser, and march forward with those who believe like we do to achieve the American Dream.
In such a way, we overcame a civil war that could have ended the nation, and we built an even greater nation. In such a way we have achieved unparalleled prosperity in the world.
In such a way, the people cut through the media clutter and elected Donald Trump president in November. They grasped organically what President Obama’s policies meant to their lives and families, and they gave an ear and support to the opposition.
And so it will be again as Donald Trump stands before us today, on this Inauguration Day, as president of the United States. In the will and way of our great exceptionalism and proud individualism, in the same way as Obama’s was, Donald Trump’s fate will be sealed by the people, as will that of the opposition.
As on all Inauguration Days, the American people realize it is their own hands, and their own hands only, that can free them, and so today a new generation sets out to win its freedom again.
There will be casualties, as always, and winners and losers, and more crises to come, but to all Americans setting out on this noble mission today with our new president, even if it is in opposition, may the winds of liberty be at your back.
|Posted by richardmoore on December 16, 2016 at 12:20 PM|
When a politician does what he says he’s going to do, you’d better get ready for the flak from the ideological and special-interest hacks.
And so it was that President-elect Donald Trump got both the Left and Right in a dither recently when he made good on his promise to save jobs — about a 1,000 of them, give or take — that Çarrier Corporation, a division of United Technologies, said it was going to move to Mexico.
All through the campaign, Trump hammered Carrier for its decision, and he promised to call the company’s executives after he won the election to convince them to stay. Otherwise, Trump said, if they still wanted to leave, he would say ‘adios and good luck’ and slap a 35-percent tax on any goods it imported into the USA.
Trump calls things like that “the art of the deal.” He wrote a very successful book about it.
The Left — Bernie Sanders and his ilk — and the Right — Sarah Palin and other Tea Party types — immediately called The Donald out, saying the deal was one more example of crony capitalism. Palin, an early Trump supporter, was indignant because, she said, the government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers, and especially by feathering the nests of special interests, in this case Carrier, with incentives to do what they should be doing anyway.
To be sure, the Carrier deal is loaded with incentives, about $7 million over 10 years.
So is Donald Trump a fraud? Hardly. In making the deal he made good on a campaign promise.
But was it just another example of crony capitalism, and a sign that nothing has changed after all?
The answer to that is a resounding ‘no.’ Palin and those attacking Trump for this deal could not be more wrong. It’s a good deal, and we should hope the president-elect can make more of them.
Technically, of course, it is crony capitalism — the government is intervening in the marketplace to help a single company — but the context makes all the difference.
First, it’s important to remember that Trump has yet to take office. There’s no way — yet — he can attack the massively spilling gravy boats of crony capitalism that saturate and stain virtually every policy document in Washington.
Once he’s in office, we expect him to make good on his broader promise to get government out of the way, end corporate welfare, and let the markets work. When he does, we’ll praise him; if he doesn’t, we’ll call him out for crony capitalism then, at the proper time.
Second, if this is cronyism, Carrier doesn’t know how to play the game very well. In exchange for that $7 million in incentives over a decade, Carrier is giving up a large chunk of what it has estimated would be about $65 million a year in savings by moving those jobs to Mexico.
So this is hardly a sweet deal for Carrier, as crony deals go, and it’s the sweetness of the deal that defines cronyism in the first place.
Third, this can be more accurately labeled counter-crony capitalism, or, to say it another way, Trump is undoing the evils of earlier crony capitalism the best way he can before taking office, piece by piece.
The real crony capitalism was NAFTA, by which U.S. corporations and Mexican business interests lined their pockets under the guise of free trade. It was anything but free trade; the flow of capital and technology may have been freed up, but the labor market side of the equation remained tethered to the existing standards of their respective national economies, which was devised by big business for itself and rigged against the workers.
Read NAFTA and you read a crony capitalist’s wet dream — some 1,000 pages of limiting the sovereignty of the partner nations, i.e., not only their ability to regulate foreign imports but to protect workers and, in Mexico, to enact standards comparable to those governing American workers. The crux of NAFTA was to keep Mexican workers poor and force American workers to compete against them.
Adding insult to injury, the American government subsidized agricultural products, providing cheap dairy, grain, and meat to Mexico; the result of that crony trade was to create an artificial market of cheap imports to Mexico that crippled domestic agriculture and, according to the Economic Policy Institute, drove some 2 million workers off their farms.
Guess where they went? Yup, to the U.S., as illegal immigrants. In the wake of NAFTA, illegal immigration to the United States rose by more than 75 percent.
In short, NAFTA was the sweetest of sweetheart deals for crony capitalists, all of it legitimized by government.
In the real world, down in the streets rather than up in the free-traders’ ivory towers, free trade only works when all the market components are free — when conditions of competitiveness exist on both the labor and capital sides — not just those that benefit big business. There’s nothing free or capitalist about a cartelized international economy that dictates to nation states what capital, investment, and labor standards they can and cannot pass.
Here’s what the libertarian economist (as in opposed to government intervention and crony capitalism) Murray Rothbard wrote:
“Yet NAFTA is more than just a big business trade deal. It is part of a very long campaign to integrate and cartelize government in order to entrench the interventionist mixed economy. In Europe, the campaign culminated in the Maastricht Treaty, the attempt to impose a single currency and central bank on Europe and force its relatively free economies to rachet up their regulatory and welfare states. In the United States, this has taken the form of transferring legislative and judicial authority away from the states and localities to the executive branch of the federal government. NAFTA negotiations have pushed the envelope by centralizing government power continent-wide, thus further diminishing the ability of taxpayers to hinder the actions of their rulers. Thus the siren-song of NAFTA is the same seductive tune by which the socialistic Eurocrats have tried to get Europeans to surrender to the super-statism of the European Community: wouldn’t it be wonderful to have North America be one vast and mighty ‘free trade unit’ like Europe? The reality is very different: socialistic intervention and planning by a super-national NAFTA Commission or Brussels bureaucrats accountable to no one.”
In this free trade world, capital was globalized and mobilized; technology was globalized and mobilized; productivity was globalized and mobilized; even desperate Mexican workers were globalized and mobilized.
American workers and their jobs? They were destabilized and immobilized.
American workers were rooted to the decaying spot, and it was all part of the free-trade planned economy. This is what crony capitalism, which is really bureaucratic collectivism, looks like. In such a situation, what is the president-elect to do?
The situation is comparable to that of a general of an advance army unit that has surrounded a barbaric government guilty of the ongoing slaughter of its citizens. The general is holding in place until the full army arrives to liberate the country. Meanwhile, the slaughter of citizens continues, but a few rogue members of the surrounded government decide to try and cut a deal. They make one last crony offer — we’ll spare some of these citizens if you just pay us the right price and let us get out alive.
Should the general stand on principle and let those the general could have saved die, while waiting for the full army to arrive? Or should the general save whom he or she can until the cavalry arrives to save whoever is left? Should he or she make the deal with the rogue band of barbarians and save real lives in real time?
In this scenario, the NAFTA economy is the barbarian government carrying out the slaughter of American workers and the president-elect is the general of the advance army. The liberation army he is waiting on is his government authority that will officially arrive on Jan. 20. Carrier represents the break-away band who offers to spare a 1,000 families, if it can get a deal, any deal.
In Sarah Palin’s world, the right thing to do is let the 1,000 die and wait until Jan. 20 to attack the entire problem from a principled, ivory-towered perch. Trump, a man of action, decided to save the few he can while he readies himself to save the many and to end once and for all the sort of sordid deals he had to make.
Trump’s way is the right way. It is the action of a man who sees and feels pain. Those who live in the ivory towers do not feel the pain of others; their theories do not bleed or sob from hunger. The philosopher kings and queens cannot feel compassion, for they are in love with only abstractions, devoid of humanity.
Trump’s spot deals are not without precedent. John F. Kennedy famously called out U.S. Steel for its pricing policies and used his bully pulpit to call out other corporations not acting in the national interest.
In this respect, Trump may be more like Kennedy that he is like Ronald Reagan.
His Carrier deal may well be crony capitalism, but it is crony capitalism in the national interest, not in the globalists’ interests. It is crony capitalism for the public interest, not for the private special interest.
It is crony capitalism for the people, and it is long overdue.
|Posted by richardmoore on December 8, 2016 at 8:00 AM|
Years ago, living in New York City, my wife and I, excitedly awaiting the birth of our child, attended Lamaze classes in Manhattan to prepare for what we hoped would be natural childbirth.
These weren’t just any Lamaze classes. It was called Fusion Lamaze, or something similarly exotic, a 1980s update to the techniques popularized in the 1940s.
I’ll never forget the first lesson. Our instructor informed us that the modified Lamaze techniques had just been imported to New York from a foreign country — California, she deadpanned. It was quite funny, and we New Yorkers enjoyed a good and knowing laugh.
But it’s no longer a joke, and no one is really laughing anymore, least of all the people on the Left Coast. California is in fact a foreign country — culturally, politically, socioeconomically — when compared to the rest of the United States, and it has been for a long, long time, at least from the days when the state gave birth to Fusion Lamaze.
It’s not just that the state voted for Hillary Clinton, though California is increasingly the last stand of the Democratic Party. If New York is the Democrat’s wallet, then California is its heart and soul.
New York, though, has deep cultural, patriotic, and birthright ties to the rest of the nation; to be a New Yorker is to be a true American Yankee.
Not so California. There’s no cultural or philosophical tether. Symbolically, to be a Californian is to be a gold digger, not a Yankee.
Its residents are as foreign in lifestyle and thought as the day is long. They dream of open borders and establishment globalism. They do not share our respect for American sovereignty and constitutional values.
They identify their politics by special-interest allegiance to identity groups. They claim gender on the basis of self-identity, and even citizenship is a state of mind. Human-driven climate change, though, is indisputable science, and skepticism is subject to censorship.
Californians are tie-dyed clothing in a dressed-up and grown-up world. Around LA, everybody eats out but nobody goes outdoors, for the smog is too thick. In California, a policy expert is otherwise known as a movie star.
It’s time to admit that California is California, not America, and it always has been. In 1949, as columnist Joe Mathews points out, Carey McWilliams wrote in his book, “California: The Great Exception,” that “(o)ne cannot, as yet, properly place California in the American scheme of things.”
“California is no ordinary state,” McWilliams wrote. “It is an anomaly, a freak, the great exception among the American states.”
We all know this. Californians all know this. And so it is time for all of us to admit that California will never be properly placed in the American scheme of things, and to file for an amicable divorce.
To say it straight up, it is time for California to leave the United States of America and to become its own country.
It’s certainly strong enough economically to do so. Just this year, according to Reuters, California became the world’s sixth biggest economy, larger than India’s, larger than France’s. There’s nothing stopping California now.
Don’t get me wrong. I have no desire to boot the Golden state from the nation. I’m simply here to say that we should help them leave if they want to, and a growing number of them appears to want to.
In the wake of the presidential election, an independence group, Yes California, has submitted a proposed ballot measure to the state’s attorney general’s office. They hope to have a statewide referendum on secession in 2018.
Among the reasons they cite for wanting to establish their own country is the same one I just mentioned: Californians are culturally different from the rest of the country. The group’s leaders say they have 13,000 volunteers ready to collect signatures.
They have some pretty heavyweight Silicon Valley supporters, too. Dave Morin of the social networking tool Path and Marc Hemeon, founder of Design Inc., have reportedly expressed some interest.
The president of Yes California, Louis Marinelli, puts it this way: “This is the first Western secessionist movement that worked, and I think that is going to be very profound. Are you going to say to people in the freest country in the world [you] don’t have the right to self-determination?”
That’s well put, even if it does fly in the face of the Left’s (and most Californians’) wish to deny the U.S. its own right to self-determination, that is to say, our right to reject globalism and open borders for national sovereignty. National self-determination is nothing more than nationalism, after all, so Californians, mad that the U.S. has now embraced an ascendent political nationalism, seem prepared to assert their own nationalist self-determination so that they may then surrender it to globalism.
This is the way these people think, but I digress.
The point is, let’s wish them well. As a libertarian constitutionalist, I do not believe any nation should hold a people hostage, nor can I find anywhere in our constitution where it commands that states that join the union can never leave. This isn’t Facebook, after all.
The nation has been seceding and reorganizing in a de facto way for a while now, and this would merely formalize what is going on. That is to say, as columnist Pat Buchanan has pointed out, conservatives have been moving to politically conservatives states and regions for years, while liberals have been headed for urban utopias. Hence, the nickname the Left Coast.
Just ask a liberal where paradise is, and likely as not the answer will be California, not Heaven.
So how can we help our good friends achieve their Calexit?
Well, though the constitution doesn’t say anything about being held hostage to a union no longer working — much like laws and customs not allowing people to divorce — our liberal courts have interpreted the constitution just that way, and we fought a civil war over such states’ rights.
So allowing California to secede, if they decide they want to, will require a constitutional amendment. If that happens, we should ask our state legislatures to support such an amendment — with appropriate safeguards for American interests and property, of course — and let California’s people go.
It would in keeping with Great Britain allowing Scotland to vote on secession two years ago. It would be in keeping with Britain’s own vote this year to withdraw from the European Union. It would be in keeping with the doctrine of states’ rights, and yet another win for national self-determination and sovereignty.
If California wants to exit, then by all means, say yes to Calexit. And let’s speed up the process.