Should Northern California Secede and Become the State of Jefferson?

Activists in Northern California, near the border with Oregon, are pushing to secede from the Golden State. They say they're fed up with taxes, regulation, and lack of representation. If they get their way, the country's 51st entrant would be called the State of Jefferson.

"The three major urban areas dictate politics for the entire state," says Mark Baird of the Jefferson Declaration Committee.  "Our children are leaving, our economy is crashing, we are taxed, every breath we take is regulated, and we feel that a free state will cure that."

To date, five county governments have signed on the plan and more may be joining up. 

"We can't afford to run a California style beauracracy, that is true," says Baird. "But as a small rural state, we don't want to. "

The idea of secession in California isn't new. During the Great Depression, folks started pushing a similar plan in the same part of the state but threw in the towel after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Both California's state legislature and the U.S. Congress would have to approve the plan to make Jefferson more than a pipe dream. That's not going to happen any time soon, but Northern California's separatist movement is worth exploring as a way of pushing back against a distant and unresponsive government. 

Produced by Alex Manning. Additional camera Tracy Oppenheimer.

About 5:30 minutes.

Scroll below for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for automatic notification when new material goes live.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • JD3||

    This would be amazing.
    Count me in.

  • SForza||

    It would be amazing. I'd prefer it be named Madison, because Jefferson is overrated and Madison was awesome, but I could live with Jefferson.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    If we're choosing from American statesman names I submit Coolidge.

  • The Original Jason||

    If we split California into six states, we could name them after Jefferson, Madison, Coolidge, and a couple others...

  • RBS||

    Reagan, Nixon...

  • marshaul||

    WTF?

  • Vulgar Madman||

    Spoonertopia?

  • Librlrevolution||

    Nixon? Seriously?

  • Bobarian||

    There are a couple of places in California that tend to be the root of the problem.

  • ||

    The Bay Area should be named after Emperor Norton.

  • taegukgi||

    Add in Cleveland...

  • BakedPenguin||

    Cleveland might be the most under-rated Pres ever.

  • ||

    He let the country down.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Would the bay area state go straight for Marx, of something with more panache like Che?

  • SForza||

    Obama!

  • Sudden||

    The other three areas would need to be Wilson. Roosevelt, and Debs.

  • cavalier973||

    Franklin.

    Not only was he America's True Renaissance Man, the word itself means "freeholding landowner".

  • Hyperion||

    Jefferson is overrated? Have you even been to Monticello? The guy was amazing.

    The fact that people call the dullard in chief we have now, brilliant, is sickening.

  • RBS||

    How about call it BOOOOOSH!!!!! just to troll the neighbors.

  • derpules||

    With a confederate state flag

  • ||

    I like how the flag in the illustration indicates how everyone in the area signs their names. Personalization, man.

  • Rev-Match||

    Jefferson is overrated?...The guy was amazing.

    Duh. And Madison was more in line with the nationalist wing of the founders (as opposed to the real federalists like TJ).

  • Cytotoxic||

    TJ was a slave-owning hypocrite who discarded most of his principals once in government. Washington was a real man.

  • cavalier973||

    Washington and Madison also owned slaves.

  • SForza||

    "Have you ever been to Monticello?"

    I have, and it, too, is overrated. In addition to being a slave-owner, he spent way beyond his means and depended on others to cover his debts. And he wasn't the architect of the Constitution; Madison was. The Constitution may not mean much now, but I credit it with protecting freedom for 100+ years.

    Not saying Jefferson wasn't great-- compared to all presidents since Reagan (and, arguably, since Coolidge), he looks pretty brilliant. But compared to others of his generation, he's overrated.

  • ||

    Given the abysmal track record of geo-political regions living up to their namesakes, I'd hope they choose none of the above.

    They should almost pick a name out of spite, like Washington or take the California name and just start calling SoCal New Mexico.

  • ||

    It would be cool if the state of Illinois seceded from Chicago and became East Indiana, or New Kentucky. They could still run with the Land of Lincoln motto.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    and became East Indiana

    Thus trolling all 3rd graders from here to eternity.

  • ||

    Born in Kentucky, raised in Indiana, had a job in IL, died in D.C. and IL claims him as their own... trolls gonna troll.

  • BuSab Agent||

    Um *raises hand* Illinois is west of Inidana...

  • ||

    Shhh... Don't confuse them.

  • Vulgar Madman||

    New California republic!

  • Librlrevolution||

    I wonder of anyone else got the Fallout reference.

  • Septawn||

    I DID!

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    The history of Jefferson goes back a long way: over a hundred years, depending on whom you ask, and certainly over 80 years. I doubt they'd be interested in changing the name at this late date in the movement.

  • XM||

    Name your new state after Jefferson Davis, the president of the confederate states of America?

    Racists!

  • entropy_factor||

    I would move in a heartbeat if the State of Jefferson upheld the ideals of the man it would be named after.

  • sarcasmic||

    aye

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Moving away to start your own thing because you hate how your neighbors are running the show IS upholding the ideals of George Jefferson.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    +1 Movin on up!

  • Hyperion||

    Is that you, Weezey?

  • AlexInCT||

    +1 De-LUX appartment in the sky!

  • Vulgar Madman||

    So, you should shoot your neighbors instead?
    Why so violent?

  • Duke||

    YOU STEAL MY JOKE

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    Can we move it further south? I'm just a little north of Sacramento and I'd love to opt in!

  • Agammamon||

    It'd be great if they moved the border far enough south to *encompass* Sacramento (and San Francisco).

    Then maybe we could save Southern California.

  • creech||

    I doubt even a modern day Robert Lee and Thomas Jackson could put up a good fight against the combined forces of Sacramento and Washington D.C. what with drones, missiles, and attack helicopters being used against them.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    So this is NEVER going to happen, however, it's kind of fun to speculate what a new map of the US would look like if such a thing became possible. I am sure my native PA would fracture in a heartbeat, and Oregon where I live now would likely become E and W Oregon.

  • Agammamon||

    I'd love to see a little mini-state carved out of the Phoenix metro area.

    Maybe then we could get them to leave us alone.

  • sarcasmic||

    Maine would split into N and S in an instant.

  • The Last American Hero||

    New England needs to consolidate into one state, not split into more.

  • sarcasmic||

    No. Fucking. Way.

  • kinnath||

    Wrong.

    Increase the number of representatives and split all the mega-states into smaller states, thus increasing the number of senators as well.

  • ||

    Never going to happen. New England could function as a separate country, but the states inside of it will never join up. They've been distinct entities for almost 400 years (excluding Maine, which was a Massachusetts territory). Their history is older than the US by 150 years.

  • Agammamon||

    That's an excuse, not a reason, to stay together.

    On the one hand I'd support the NE breaking up. Multiple competing mini-states (who am I kidding, compared to the west they're *all* mini-states) and no-one criminal douchebag (and all the politicians in the higher offices are criminals in the NE) can hold significant national power just because his jurisdiction happens to hold a major world-finance center.

    OTOH - as a collective block they'd have *more* say in national matters. historically this has been a bad thing for us westerners.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Rhode Island alone has twice the population of this proposed state of Jefferson. What's the basis for forcing New England to consolidate while encouraging secessation elsehwere (other than blatant Team Red partisianship, I mean)?

  • marshaul||

    Seems like you answered your own question.

  • ||

    It's possible these weren't entirely serious proposals, put forth by frustrated liberty types who have the misfortune of living in NE states. A little more bran in one end and a little less sand in the other might do you good.

  • Logical 1||

    Only if we in Connecticut can adopt New Hampshire-style govt and their cool license plate motto "Live Free or Die". I would love to eliminate the shitty CT legislature.

  • Ahem'||

    We aren't all that and a bag of chips as far as the state gov goes here in the Granite State. At the federal level We elected Annie Kuster and Carol Shea Porter as US reps. They're female versions of Stalin and Mao.
    The state senate is held by the R's while the legislature is held by the D's, we're the only state without an income or a sales tax but it ain't like they're not tryin and the free state project is stalled at this point.

  • RBS||

    I think SC would be at least 3 with the Upstate, Charleston/Lowcountry then the rest of us.

  • Restoras||

    Most of NY would be more than happy to split from the idiot down-staters.

  • livelikearefugee||

    Please come liberate the oppressed in the People's Republic of Oregon (PRO).

  • Agammamon||

    IMO, whenever the question 'should we secede' comes up, the answer is yes.

  • waffles||

    Yes. A thousand times yes.

  • ||

    Anyone who thinks, even for a heartbeat, that the feds will let a single inch of territory go, is insane. That's where their power comes from. They will never, ever peaceably allow secession. I think we even have precedent for this. Something that happened from about 1861-1865.

  • SugarFree||

    The acting career of John Wilkes Booth?

  • ||

    Man, was he good in Our American Cousin.

  • JEP||

    He blew my mind.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    Too Soon!

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    Working, so I have not yet watched the video, but I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the new state of Jefferson would simply be a new entry into the United States. It's secession from California, not from the US.

  • sarcasmic||

    There are two factions. One wants to become the 51st state, while the other wants to become its own republic. Not that it matters, since neither will happen.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    Gotcha. Yeah, the idea of belonging to a tiny republic that is basically surrounded by the US is a little terrifying. I've seen how they treat other countries.

  • sarcasmic||

    Why do you hate black people?

  • PapayaSF||

    There's no way Sacramento legislators will give up part of the state, and create a new one that might not have Democratic senators, which would be the reason every Democrat in DC would be against it.

  • Camisard||

    You could break it up into three states, two Dem and one GOP. That wouldn't change the Senate makeup at all. Cali's HoR delegation would probably be for it since it opens up spots in the Senate for them.

    The state leg would be the big problem of course. Though some of the aspiring power-hungry statist legislators might consider it a means of bypassing the currently powerful statists and getting more power.

    And then there's the whole issue of water rights which could get very nasty.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    The Boundary Treaty of 1970.

    We lost almost 500 acres of land to Mexico

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.....ty_of_1970

  • marshaul||

    They're seceding (or proposing to) from California, not the United States.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Something that happened from about 1861-1865.

    What does an illegal criminal slave proto-state have to do with breaking up California?

  • Jefferson's Ghost||

    wrong, 1861 will not happen again

  • ||

    But the proposal isn't secession from the United States, it's admittance into the United States as a separate state seceded from California. The only reason the national government would possibly give a shit is it would change the composition of the legislature. The territory would still be under their thumb.

  • ||

    Obviously I should have scrolled...

  • Stormy Dragon||

    "Our children are leaving, our economy is crashing, we are taxed, every breath we take is regulated, and we feel that a free state will cure that."

    All though seriously, even if California were libertopia, I doubt their kids would be hanging around, nor would the economy be much better.

    Most people just don't want to live out in the middle of nowhere.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Which Jefferson will this be named after?

    Thomas? Davis? Weezie?

    I prefer Brownsylvania myself.

  • sarcasmic||

    Starship!

  • ||

    Who built this city?

  • sarcasmic||

    Democrats! Unions! Obama!

  • Almanian!||

    WE did.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    you didn't build that!

  • sarcasmic||

    Oh, sorry. I thought you asked who destroyed this city.

  • Almanian!||

    What you really want to ask is how it was built - or with what material.

  • sarcasmic||

    Rock and/or roll...

  • Hyperion||

    Rock and Roll built this city.

    Who put the straw in strawberries?

  • John||

    Brownsylvania?

    RACIST!!

  • Hyperion||

    I'm still waiting on West Murlan. I'm moving when it happens.

  • John||

    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....on-nation/

    The National Cathedral, now with added butt sex.

    Serious question, are there any Episcopal ministers who are not gay or transsexual? At this point being a straight male Episcopal minister has to be one of the most odd ball and subversive things one could be.

  • BakedPenguin||

    All the more ironic, since their rites are almost the exact same as the Catholics.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Which side of the line would Charming, CA end up in?

  • Hyperion||

    I remember once upon a time, in a company that I was working for, everyone suddenly got on this religious trip. Someone in management got religious, and it was like a plague, everyone had to get religion.

    The hilarious part was watching the seriousness about how each of them had to decide which particular flavor of religion they needed to be. Some decided they should be catholic because they thought it would be good to send their kids to the local catholic school.

    Others chose different denominations of protestant. I remember one lady telling us that she had to be Lutheran because the Lutherans drink a lot and that's important to her. This was the point that after weeks of this shit, I just became infuriated and yelled at them 'What the fuck is wrong with you people!? I can already do what I want, I don't need any fucking religion to tell me that! You just are all phony as hell!'. After a moment of shocked silence, there were a few giggles or subdued chuckles.

  • Vulgar Madman||

    The fun side, obviously.

  • ||

    Didn't watch the video, but I would have imagined a coastal areas/inland split would seem more logical. There seemed to be much more of a cultural/political divide the further inland you went.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    It's basically rural vs urban. There are large, yet sparsely populated areas of CA that are very poorly represented by their Democrat overlords. The dems have had a majority in the CA legislature for over 40 years. It's even worse, now that a simple majority is required to raise taxes.

    The dems own the state, and they make sure you know it every minute of every day.

  • Jumbie||

    Wouldn't the biggest city in NorCal be SF? Seems a pointless endeavour.

  • Almanian!||

    Not if you start north of SF...I think Santa Rosa's a bit north? Start there, instead.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    North of the wall, they call SF southern California.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    I can attest to this. As far as they are concerned, Santa Cruz (and even SF, too) might just as well be the suburbs of L.A. My family and I stopped to check out the area and visit a bit, during a road trip to Seattle some years back, and it immediately became clear who considered themselves the "real" Northern Californians. But perhaps, soon, they will be able to consider themselves the Jeffersonians. I don't see the southern Oregon counties supporting the project, though, as they enthusiastically did in the 1930s and -40s. I do think that the 1941 version of Jefferson made more sense, both in terms of area and population.

  • Almanian!||

    *checks map*

    Yeah - just go with "everything north of I-80, not including any parts of SF and Sacramento", and you'd be golden!

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    Everyone in CA outside of Sacramento thinks that LA is the state capital anyway. I say we take Sacramento for Jefferson and they can make LA the state Capital for CA, or what's left of it.

  • Almanian!||

    1) YES! DO IT!

    2) I'd send money to support the new state, even though I don't live there, if they'd call themselves "Not Sure" and name their state house (or one of the houses if they have more than one) "The House of Representin'"

  • AlexInCT||

    Only if we have a persident Camacho in charge, baby!

  • Camisard||

    If they have a parliamentary government complete with Question Time I'd contribute too.

    (the Constitution only requires that states have a republican form of govt, doesn't have to be a "presidential" system that the federal govt has)

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Can't we just kick SoCal out of the union altogether?

    And then build a wall. With concertina wire. Electrified. With a minefield. And gun towers.

  • Almanian!||

    I won't have to pay a duty on Edelbrock parts if they're not in the Union, right?

    CAuse if so, then yeah - I'm in.

  • ||

    Wait, what? SD and OC and the boring inland counties aren't particularly liberal. LA is less liberal than SF. Why are we getting booted out of the union?

  • ||

    Because of Michael Bay.

    Sorry, no excuses.

  • ||

    Don't come crying to me when you have a critical lens flare shortage in the Union.

  • ||

    I didn't say Abrams, I said Bay. But thanks for giving us another reason to boot you. Just think of it as a preemptive strike for the Star Wars reboots.

  • ||

    At least you can't hold us responsible for Uwe Boll.

  • ||

    Yes I can.

  • ||

    I think you should blame Nicole: He lives in Ontario, the capital is Toronto and Toronto is the Chicago of Canada.

    QED: Nicole is the worst.

  • Hyperion||

    Chicago sure as hell don't have no Rob Ford! So that's one for Toronto!

  • Agammamon||

    POSTAL MOTHERFUCKER. Redeems all his previous work.

  • Aloysious||

    It's good to see Uwe Boll get some love.

  • ||

    It's not a reboot, it's a sequel trilogy. And maybe some stand alones. And then maybe a reboot. But it's totally not a reboot.

  • RBS||

    Speaking of Michael Bay, I saw a preview for TMNT over the weekend. What the hell? It's not even close to what I remember as a kid.

  • ||

    Why would you think that Bay would make anything like what you knew? You have seen Transformers, right?

    And he cast Megan Fox as April. Of course.

  • RBS||

    Actually, I had forgotten Bay was doing the movie so when I saw the preview, with Megan Fox, my first though was "jesus christ, this looks just Transformers." Then I remembered.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    What the hell? It's not even close to what I remember as a kid.

    Which is exactly what the fans of the comic were saying when the TV show came out.
  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    LA is less liberal than SF. Why are we getting booted out of the union?

    Oh, you would get to keep SF (we certainly don't want it). North of SF would be the state of Jefferson.

    AND you really need to ask the second part?

  • Calidissident||

    SF is in SoCal?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Yes. Perhaps not geographically, but politically.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    Exactly. As I Mentioned above, I want Sacramento in Jefferson, but CA can keep the entire bay area and everything south, although I'm willing to bet there are a lot of Central Vally and Mountain region folks who would want to get the hell out.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I REFUSE TO CHANGE OUT ALL MY FLAGS. Consolidate another two states so we're still at 50 stars and I'll brook it.

  • Almanian!||

    You don't have to be a star, baby, to be in my show union...

  • RBS||

    So, Dakota it is.

  • derpules||

    That was my first thought

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Montana will gladly incorporate Idaho.

  • Aloysious||

    We will happily give them Boise.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    I'd happily give all of southern idaho south of McCall to Utah and either have a N.Idaho state or join Montana. Or join with eastern washington, but only if they ditch western washington.

  • Aloysious||

    We want to keep N. Idaho whichever way we go. Lake Pend Oreille is amazing.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    Stunning. I'd love to visit there.

  • Michael Bluth||

    You'd be surprised by the amount of Southern Idaho Mormons who want nothing to do with Utah.

  • Ebriosa||

    No, we need a 51 so PR can be 52. We don't officially let PR be a state because politicians don't like odd numbers. Official reason.
    Then we can go after Canada. Let's go for 60!

  • Raven Nation||

    57 is, I believe, the presidentially-prefered number.

  • kinnath||

    You could draw boundaries around all the major cities in the country and declare them city/states -- give each one a couple of representatives and one senator. Then split up the remaining rural and sub-urban lands into traditional states with proportional representation in the house and a couple of senators.

    The democratic party would control the city states and the republicans the traditional states. Then all national politics would come down to the true division in modern society, urban dwellers versus everyone else.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    give each one a couple of representatives and one senator

    Can't. Equal representation in the Senate is the one part of the Constitution that's not allowed to change, even by ammendment. Either they're states and get the same number of Senators as every other state, or they're not a state and get none.

  • kinnath||

    city-states don't exist in the constitution either. so as long as I am having a fantasy on reorganizing the states, I might as well fix the constitution as well.

  • Restoras||

    While you're at it, could you make the statement "shall not be infringed" more clear?

  • kinnath||

    Happy to oblige.

    Any other requests?

  • Lord at War||

    Amendment 10a- Go back and read those last two. No, really.

  • Vulgar Madman||

    You know who else talked about city-states?

  • GamerFromJump||

    Plato?

  • Pathogen||

    W.I.?

  • R C Dean||

    You can change anything by amendment. Anything.

    Other requests:

    No withholding or advance payment of taxes. Tax day shall be the day before election day.

  • thom||

    You can change anything by amendment. Anything.

    And none of it will matter, because according to the great minds behind our legal system, the Constitution is not written in English, but some cryptic language that only lawyers are trained to understand that resembles English but has different meanings for the words.

  • Camisard||

    You can change anything by amendment. Anything.

    Article V which defines the amendment power specifically says you can't change equal representation in the Senate. Constitutional law isn't Liar's Dice.

  • ||

    That is not correct:

    no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate
  • Camisard||

    Totally forgot about that clause... though it's hard to imagine any state ever consenting to losing representation.

    The larger point stands though, there are things that can't be amended.

  • DRM||

    It's a two-step process:

    Amendment 28: "In Article V, the phrase 'no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate' is hereby abrogated."

    Amendment 29: "California gets no Senators at all, bitches."

  • Mokers||

    Otisville or bust!

  • Libertarian||

    Should Northern California Secede and Become the State of Jefferson?

    Yes. Next question please.

  • Hyperion||

    You know, when it comes right down to it, with all of the victimhood going on and the new classes of victims springing up every day, I feel insulted.

    Is there really a bigger class of victims than libertarians? I mean, we don't even have our own country! And we never had one! We're more unenfranchised.. Yes, unenfranchised! That's what we are! See the definition here!

    Unenfranchised

    We're more unenfranchised than the Palestinians! At least at one time there was a Palestine. When was there ever a Libertopia?!

    As we brethren wonder in the wilderness, no one cares! I'm declaring our victimhood!

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Why not! I wonder if the idea for the name came from "The Provisional Government of the Territory of Jefferson, which was an extralegal and unrecognized United States territory that existed from October 24, 1859 until the creation of the Colorado Territory on February 28, 1861?"

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Secession is racism, the science is settled. The only reason the people of these counties want to secede is to preserve the institution of slavery against the wise and benevolent leadership of Sacremento.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    Naturally, Weed should be the new capitol.

  • RogerN||

    Definitely! (Only if Sacramento is included)

  • wef||

    Pardon, if this has already been answered somewhere, and maybe this is obvious, but I read in Article IV of the Constitution that

    New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

    and note the placement of the semi-colons.

    Wouldn't this require that at the least the new state be formed by adding a part of another state.

    And as an aside, if secession is illegal (and ignoring the embarrassment of re-admitting the Confederated States), wouldn't West Virginia be unconstitutional under Section 3, Article IV, reading the semi-colons correctly.

    But - ha, ha, - really, who cares what the constitution says?

  • ||

    The proposal includes a few counties from Oregon, I believe. Besides, the operative sentence is the last one: you can do any of those things as long as you have the consent of the legislature of the states concerned, as well as congress.

  • Brian D||

    And yet West Virginia was once entirely a part of Virginia.

  • Camisard||

    Virginia's legislature absolutely did not approve that; however VA was not considered a US state at the time due to rebellion.

    A better example would be the creation of Maine from territory entirely belonging to Massachusetts. Nevada also expanded twice after statehood (taking land from Utah and Arizona), but that's a different thing.

  • DRM||

    Regardless of the semi-colons, it's consistently been interpreted as meaning the consent of the legislature of the state losing territory is required, not that it's absolutely prohibited to make a new state out of the territory of an old one. The paradigmatic case is Maine, which was created in 1820 out of Massachusetts.

    Note there's a very easy workaround for your interpretation anyway; the state cedes part of its territory to the Federal Government, and then that land, no longer under the jurisdiction of any state, is made into a new state. (See Kentucky, created entirely out of land ceded to the US by Virgina.)

    West Virginia was created with the explicit permission of what the United States at the time was recognizing as the legal legislature of the State of Virginia. And note the right of Congress to decide what competing state government to recognize as the valid one was established back in Rhode Island's Dorr Rebellion in 1842.

  • PatriotInTheOriginalSense||

    California's state legislature [...] would have to approve the plan to make Jefferson more than a pipe dream. That's not going to happen any time soon ever. FTFY.

    Seriously, the whole point of secession is wanting nothing to do with the assholes you're seceding from. It's like wanting to leave the room when your wife's bitching at you and having to get her permission first (except, of course, that in this case you're doomed either way). Seems rather back asswards to me.

  • Rev-Match||

    Should Northern California Secede and Become the State of Jefferson?

    Probably.

  • Mauser||

    Why absolutely they should! I say carve the shit out of libertopia!
    Them poor country folk need relief from those big city lefties......

  • american socialist||

    Yes, please do. You can call it Rubesville. After that can we here in the Bay Area get out of the United States unhindered by those dickheads in Redding and Placer County? I would like to visit once in a while, but I wouldn't want to live there.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Redding is way cool. No dissing Redding on my watch, mr. socialist.

  • Sevo||

    american socialist|6.9.14 @ 8:18PM|#
    ..."After that can we here in the Bay Area"...

    Can the rest of us in the Bay Area get rid of dickheads like you? Please?

  • Uncle Jay||

    As WEF correctly pointed out, our beloved US Constitution does now allow for a state to be made from another state(s). This brings up two points for discussion:
    1. How sad it is that "permission" from a state and the United States Congress must be obtained in order to form a new state.
    2. This brings to my mind should we invest time and wisdom in revising our Constitution? And if so, what amendments should be added and by whom?

  • Brian D||

    Permission from a state is only required when the new state will take territory from the existing state.

  • Camisard||

    As WEF correctly pointed out, our beloved US Constitution does now allow for a state to be made from another state(s).

    Maine was made from Massachusetts.

  • ||

    I wonder who else is surprised there`s a hillbilly part of California.
    It's like the gun-fetishizing rednecks got hold of a map of the West Coast and decided they needed to infect the civilized part of the country with a little bit of moonshined, jug-headed inbreeding.

  • ||

    Yeah, there's certainly no guns or booze in the "civilized" parts of California.

  • Irish||

    In fact, I've never heard of violence in any part of the country run by Democrats. Chicago, Detroit, New York in the 70's and 80's, LA, St. Louis...all of them are just astonishingly safe.

    It's probably because inbred Republicans don't live there.

  • LDRider||

    Forget dividing up. Texas should secede, but take the old Republic of Texas territory with us, as we get good art from the southwest and primo skiing in central Colorado. We also take Oklahoma as a buffer state (analogous to, say, Poland) and Louisiana, simply to control the Mississippi River.

  • Warren's Strapon||

    I like Texas, but I'm pretty sure they'd fuck up all the things I like about Louisiana.

  • livelikearefugee||

    If that doesn't work, just quitclaim California back to Mexico. It was obviously a bug mistake to take it away from them.

  • Ebriosa||

    I like the cut of your autocorrect.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Now the interns are just fucking with us.

  • Hyperion||

    Squirrels take the day off, time warps ensue, news at 11...

  • Los Doyers||

    Aren't you located in Baltimore? I just landed at Dulles, coming from LAX, for a 10 week internship in DC. Know any good watering holes in DC? I'm assuming you've spent some significant time in the DC area, I could be wrong.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Quit coming on to him. He's married.

  • Sudden||

    Quit trying to steal my dog. He's happy where he is.

  • Los Doyers||

    Hey, dog is a fine meat.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Dude, he's a designer dog. You always need to be looking over your shoulder.

    Have you Lo-Jacked him yet?

  • ||

    Have you Lo-Jacked him yet?

    No, Brickhouse him. Because if you don't use Duracell your child puggle may disappear into a white utility van at (0:18) driven by Plàya.

    Luckily the woman was using Duracell so he was only getting a red balloon.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    That van has way more windows than it should.

  • Los Doyers||

    I'd be open for a threesome, on the capitol steps.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "Chelsea Clinton Made $600,000 a Year at NBC. That Upset a Lot of Male Journalists....

    "Yes, $600,000 could pay for a lot more journalism than Clinton has produced at NBC, but how much real journalism could be done by all the female journalists who aren’t being hired? The mockery in these tweets sounds like sour grapes—journalists are notoriously bitter on the subject of income—and the suggestion that Chelsea’s paycheck was undeserved is a rather tone-deaf joke in the wake of Jill Abramson’s firing and subsequent reports of pay inequity at the New York Times.

    "Journalism is plagued by a serious gender problem [etc.]"

    http://www.newrepublic.com/art.....et-lot-men

  • ||

    Blame NBC, which apparently felt Clinton was worth that much; blame journalism at large, a struggling industry that's desperately trying to keep the public's attention; or blame our culture's obsession with fame and dynasty. But don't blame Chelsea Clinton. Her impressive paycheck, deserved or not, is a step toward balancing the scale.

    Which of those tweets blamed Clinton?

  • ||

    Most of the comments are sane, fortunately.

  • Sevo||

    ..."a struggling industry that's desperately trying to keep the public's attention;"...

    And someone thought that hiring that worthless scion would change the supposed public's opinions?
    Hey, toss some gas on that fire!

  • Irish||

    If the children of presidents aren't paid half a million dollars for 58 minutes of air time, that's just proof Republicans hate women.

  • Irish||

    After someone criticized her for nepotism, this was the next comment:

    How do you know how smart she is? How do you know she is not insightful or funny or gorgeous or doesn't have any special skills. My guess you are just heaping on her because of how you feel about her parents.



    Do you say the same things about the Koch brothers who inherited their wealth? Or, Mitt who did the same? Or the 'Legacy' kids who get into college just because their Father or Mother went there and is a heavy donor. And how about Bill Kristol who got his start because of his Father?



    Why such a contempt for Chelsea?

    Romney and the Kochs both ran businesses and ran them successfully. Romney's dad was wealthy, sure, but Romney's made far more money than his father ever did. Koch Industries is also far wealthier now than it was before the current owners.

    As much as I hate Bill Kristol, he's also been working for decades as a writer. He's also been a commentator on multiple networks, wrote for the New York Times, and started his own political magazine where he serves as editor.

    He's scum, but he's worked for his position as Head Scumbag. Chelsea got $600,000 for 58 minutes of screen time. There's no comparison.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Don't forget that Chelsea Clinton grew up in a poor family.

  • Sevo||

    So, who went to get the food stamps?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Besides all of that, the implication is that Chelsea 'inherited' the job from her parents. Further implying that NBC is owned by the Clintons.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Happy Troll Appreciation Saturday!

    (Plus, there was some discussion here about freedom in New Hampshire)

    "Yesterday, New Hampshire Governor Maggie Hassan signed into law a dangerous piece of legislation that further erodes the freedom of speech of pro-life activists. In 30 days abortion businesses will have the right to establish 25-foot buffer zones around their premises.

    "These zones will include public sidewalks...

    "Following the signing, Priests for Life National Director Fr. Frank Pavone issued a statement calling for civil disobedience to the new law:

    ""This is an unjust law, not only from the perspective of free speech, the regulation of which must be content-neutral in order to be Constitutional, but also from a perspective that is antecedent to the Constitution. This law attempts to stop those who are trying to save human lives, and therefore violates natural justice. Because of its injustice, and because of the teaching of the Church that calls for conscientious objection to such laws, this law has no claim on conscience and should be directly disobeyed and violated.""

    http://www.lifenews.com/2014/0.....ee-speech/

  • Sudden||

    Wow. Costa Rica just made Group D interesting.

  • Timon 19||

    I definitely will be watching this one tonight. Totally did not expect a result like that.

    Well done, Ticos.

  • Vampire||

    "We want to rid ourselves of this over taxing over regulating government..................and with this new government.............

    Yeah, same mistake again. Guess they haven't learned from history or Jefferson who said: "I have no fear, but that the result of our experiment will be, that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master."

    Don't you just love when folks say freedom, while being oblivious to what in the hell the definition is? I don't, because they are just as detrimental as the liberals (socialists, etc.) to freedom and liberty.

    If these lame stream republicans took over everything, how fast do you think they would work to repeal anything antithetical to freedom? Just like they supported Bush's spending, thirst for war, expansion of government, and the actions of the fed res, they would be so fast to support their own versions of thievery, and more of the police state. Secede and revoke your consent to be governed after the fact.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Republicans are at the worst when they act like Democrats.

    The same thing goes for Democrats, too.

  • ||

    Sword Fight Erupts at Sikh Temple in India

    A violent sword fight broke out between two rival Sikh groups at India’s Golden Temple in Punjab today.

    According to local reports, up to 12 people were injured in the fighting that took place at the holiest shrine in the Sikh religion.

    Video footage shows dozens of Sikh men fighting and chasing each other with swords on the steps outside the shrine.
  • AlmightyJB||

    Didn't men chase each other with their swords at your birthday party?

  • Agammamon||

    Well, it was his uncle chasing him with his 'sword'. At night, so close enough.

  • ||

    Ha. If only. My birthdays tend not to go very well.

  • Agammamon||

    Obviously this just goes to show how dangerous guns are.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    12 People Injured by Swords in Mass Shooting

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    There can be only one

  • AlmightyJB||

    "Both California's state legislature and the U.S. Congress would have to approve the plan"

    Asking permission is the first mistake.

  • Vampire||

    Thank you. Just for that I won't do the James Brown on your lawn.

    Cause this Vampire can move to any groove. I'm gonna go dance on D-w-T's lawn though. Maybe I'll "accidentally" kick a troll. And you better clean up that troll poop, cause if I get in on my mother effin shoe, it's on!

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    All are welcome to dance on my lawn. Mind the landmines, however.

  • Sevo||

    "Mind the landmines, however."

    Can be left unsaid; anyone who finds one will.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — A small but determined group of state lawmakers from some 30 states gathered in Indiana on Thursday to lay the groundwork for something that has not happened since 1787 in Philadelphia: a convention to revise the U.S. Constitution.

    "The bar they would have to clear — winning approval from 34 state legislatures — seems impossibly high, but the group of roughly 100 legislators, most of them Republicans, is pressing on....

    "Indiana's Republican Senate President Pro Tem David Long, a leader of the effort, has cited the expansion of the federal debt and President Barack Obama's health care law as examples of the national government overreaching."

    http://www.southbendtribune.co.....b2370.html

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I bet if the meeting were in the Museum of Sex, Reason would cover it.

    /snark

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    That would make the topic interesting.

  • ||

  • SusanM||

    Oh those Republican culture warriors...

    http://thenewcivilrightsmoveme.....6/13/89165

  • Irish||

    The New Republic is the most boring and pretentious magazine in existence.

    Why Men Avoid Growing Up.

    It contains this paragraph:

    On the one hand, the impulse to mock this nonsense was both natural and pressing—and yet, at the same time, there was a sense that something real was concealed behind it all, something that, if it were allowed to sour, would leave a gap, not just in my mother’s, but in all our lives, an emptiness that nothing else could possibly fill. Where we lived, everything was cooked in lard, white pudding was a Saturday-night treat, the men all smoked 80 a day and drank themselves into oblivion every chance they got, but the real killer, the thing that truly sapped your strength, like a leech sapping the blood from your heart, was disappointment (synonyms: failure, defeat, frustration), a word whose etymology—from Middle French desapointer, “to undo an appointment, to remove from office”—barely hints at its destructive power, but, given a moment’s further analysis, does express something of the pain of workaday defeat that people in that world endured. If a soppy love song could ease that sense of defeat for a while, who was I to mock? The fact that, on occasion, during my clever-clogs years, I did mock now shames me more than I can say.

    Progressives need to learn that peppering a sentence with French doesn't make you a good writer.

  • Sevo||

    ..."like a leech sapping the blood from your heart, was disappointment"...

    Sounds like he haz a sad. And expects me to do something about it.
    Fuck 'em.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Several months after arresting an American streetcorner preacher on complaint of a bystander who accused him of homophobic speech, the Scottish authorities are dropping charges.

    ""Had the officers who arrested me taken a few minutes to review the video footage, they would have seen what I have maintained all along. This has been a stressful time for my family."

    "While the charges have been dropped and Mr Miano will no longer have to stand trial, he says his equipment has still not been returned.

    "He said he is also considering taking the Scottish police to court over their treatment of him."

    http://www.christiantoday.com/...../38129.htm

    CAUTION: Autoplay thing on the right of the screen

Click here to follow Reason on Instagram

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE