A House Divided: The Right and Left Call for Boycotts, Secessions, and “Divorces” in the Age of Rage

Fran Drescher, SAG-AFTRA president, appears to taking her signature role as The Nanny to heart. Actress Fran Drescher used the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) Awards to call for a host of initiatives from eliminating all single-use plastics to boycotting any states that do not meet SAG’s view of supporting “freedom, diversity, inclusion and democracy.” That latter proposal follows cities like San Francisco imposing similar boycotts. It also follows calls from Rep. Marjorie Greene (R., Ga.) for a “national divorce,” including limiting the rights of people to move from northern states to southern states for their lower crime and lower taxes. It is the ultimate expression of our age of rage where we seek separation rather than interaction with those who hold different views and values.

Drescher’s call for boycotting conservative states is nothing new. While the left has denounced Greene’s talk of a divorce, it has called for such separation for years. San Francisco is just one example. San Francisco has issued a blacklist of 22 states that its municipal employees are banned from traveling to as part of their jobs and barred employees from entering into “any new contracts with companies headquartered” in any of those states

I have long opposed such laws and even proposed an alliance to oppose such laws through reciprocity policies. In the meantime, cities like San Francisco are having doubts about the rising costs from its boycott.

Drescher wants to follow the same ill-conceived approach to Hollywood studios, barring filming in states that do not satisfy SAGs values. She does not list those values, but the question is whether SAG could resist pressure to include a long list of issues once it starts to blacklist states. If SAG includes abortion rights, what about trans gender rights, election reforms, criminal justice reform, climate change, or anti-racism as causes? Once you start to assemble a list of required values, it is very difficult to exclude other values.

The alternative is, of course, to allow citizens to determine their own laws and values. Hollywood could then focus on making movies.

I have similar objections to Greene’s proposed “divorce.” A suspension of voting rights for new citizens would raise serious constitutional questions and would likely not pass judicial review. However, it is also a fundamentally unsound and offensive presupposition.

There is understandable bitterness among voters in states like Florida, Texas, and Idaho who see Californians and Northerners flocking to their states for their lower crime, lower taxes, and affordable living. They are fleeing cities like New York, San Francisco, and Chicago. Yet, many then proceed to replicate the same political agendas of the cities that they just abandoned. That is called irony but it is also called democracy.

This a country based on freedom of travel where there have been historically great shifts in population through the decades, including the “Great Migration” of African Americans from the South to the North from the 1910 to the 1970s.

The new migration may indeed turn red states purple or even blue. Moreover, there are good-faith objections to the push by many Democrats to limit free speech and fears that the party is now engaging in a new type of McCarthyism against its opponents. However, denying fellow citizens the right to vote in state elections is akin to the Vietnam policy of destroying a village to save it. You cannot protect our core values by denying them to others. That is the tough thing about democracy. You have to convince, not coerce, people.

There are even calls for secession from blue states. One appears to be gaining steam as parts of Oregon seek to join a “Greater Idaho.” Likewise, there has long been a movement in California to split off into a separate state with more conservative counties creating a “New California” state.

What is most striking about Drescher’s call is that it would double down on a strategy that is already undermining Hollywood and woke companies like Disney. Drescher is now suggesting that directors and producers should be denied the right to choose the best states to capture the essence of a movie. It is akin to telling an artist that they are free to paint so long as they do use particular backgrounds or images. It is a denial of artistic expression of these filmmakers as well as punishment of voters for not replicating the values of Hollywood in these areas.

While Hollywood routinely ignores them, roughly half of this country are conservative and a huge percentage are religious. That includes over 74 million who voted for Donald Trump. Hollywood can continue to create movies for the liberal voters and even bar filming in conservative states. However, it could find itself with a smaller and smaller audience — and profits. While there are many contributing factors, Hollywood may already be seeing a backlash to its social and political agenda in films. “Lightyear” was thrilling for folks in Hollywood but a bomb at the box office.

For years, liberals (including many writers and editors) have called for blacklisting authors and artists. They would now blacklist whole states. That could make the situation worse for creators, viewers, and shareholders in the coming years. Groucho Marx once remarked that “in Hollywood, brides keep the bouquets and throw away the groom.” It may now be ready to keep the films and throw away the fans.

121 thoughts on “A House Divided: The Right and Left Call for Boycotts, Secessions, and “Divorces” in the Age of Rage”

  1. May God save the USAA from self-anointed know it alls such as those identified in this e-letter! and any and all others who think, speak and write in similar veins! My mother would chide us youngsters to NOT be a “holier than thou” kind of person; clearly, those who FOOLishly proclaim such ideas didn’t have the benefit of anyone such as our mother..

  2. Jonathan: In this “age of rage”, as you call it, trolls like Marjorie Taylor Greene emerge to express the rage of some that we need a “national divorce”–to separate red from blue states. That’s fine by me. But what would that separation actually look like?

    As for me that’s no problem. I could easily move back to California where I also have property. But what about MTG? Where would she go? Georgia went for Biden in 2020–and Georgia is emerging as a blue state when it comes to national elections. MTG could always move to my current state. It has banned abortion. And she wouldn’t have to put up with what she calls “government funded Antifa communist training” in the public schools here. We don’t have any of that in my state. And MTG would love my state–it went for Trump twice.

    And moving back to California would have advantages for me. We have Hollywood, the Miracle Mile and, of course, the beautiful beaches. That would not appeal to MTG who disparages “Hollywood elites and celebrities and all the brainwashed leftist women who watch the nasty women on the View”. What would she do for entertainment? Well there is always Ted Nugent.

    Humor aside, MTG’s proposal has a lot of support from Republicans in the South. 66% support secession. Just before he died Rush Limbaugh said: “There cannot be a peaceful coexistence of two completely different theories of life, theories of government, theories of how we manage our affairs. We can’t be in this dire a conflict without something giving somewhere along the way”. MTG is a perfect clone of Limbaugh.

    I know one thing. If I move back to California. I can rest in the assurance that if my granddaughter is faced with an unexpected pregnancy she will have access to a safe abortion. She will also have access to any book she wants from her school library. She won’t be denied books on Black history or LGBTQ themes. Anti-Woke ideology is not a part of public education in California.

    And what is your proposal on the red/blue state divide? You propose that red states form an “alliance” to engage in counter-boycotts through “reciprocal policies”. Now that proposal doesn’t sound like the way to form a more perfect union. And when it comes to quotes from Groucho Marx I have a better one “He [or she] may talk like an idiot, and look like an idiot ,but don’t let that fool you: He really is an idiot”. That’s MTG and your proposal in a nutshell!

    1. Lincoln made a mistake in keeping the Union together.

      The South has been a burr in this country’s ability to manifest its ideals for too long.

  3. They want boycott states like Georgia, which has one of the highest black populations in the country, in the name of diversity and inclusion. Oh the irony!

  4. So a little minority of rabid, radical activists beat a drum and yell at the top of their lungs and make a lot of noise in order to persuade that rest of the country to join them on team crazy. Who is it that hates this country so bad that they want to chip away at its foundations and destroy the very thing that made them successful? Team Crazy!

  5. My thoughts on national divorce (I must be ‘shrooming to write this):

    It’s very unlikely to be an amicable divorce. If the red states departed, the red counties in NorCal, upstate NY, downstate IL, and eastern Washington and Oregon would insist on seceding, too, taking with them the farms, power stations, water supplies, and millions of customers the port cities need. The rump states of NYC, Chicago, and LA would be at the mercy of the red states.

    I suspect this is why the left is building the “insurrection” narrative. They want the military to intervene on their behalf if such a broad-based secession was attempted. We think that they think “insurrection” is only about Trump, but the DNC might be taking the long view and Trump is just the cover story. Red-state governors be forewarned.

    Any state-by-state secession would be a disaster for red states. They would have much longer borders and fewer resources to guard them. The blue states could and would accelerate the flow of illegal immigrants, narcotics, and cheap imports into the red states—whatever it takes to undermine their neighboring rivals. That is the winning, long-term strategy for blue states in the event of a state-by-state breakup. Sooner or later, the red states would have to escalate to a military response.

    For the red states and red counties in blue states, the only sustainable outcome is to hem in the major globalized port, set up controllable borders around them, and kick these cities out of the Union. It could be argued that since America no longer needs massive immigration and trade, keeping the major ports in the Union is destabilizing. The major ports usually favor the radical influences of foreign trade and immigration, and as conservatives flee these metros, the radicalism is getting worse, not better.

    This isn’t secession. It’s closer to proscription—the banishment of undesirables. And, again, it could hardly be called amicable.

    And there’s no guarantee the red states would win. The Pentagon might intervene on behalf of the blue states, and blue cities in red states might try to turn off the lights. It could become a huge, unpredictable mess.

    Thus, I don’t know who the winner would be, but for both sides, securing enough infrastructure and military resources is job one. For blue states that means grabbing red counties. For red states, that means subduing or circumventing blue cities.

    The next objective for red states is geographically isolating the major port metros. For the blue states, the next objective is simply stopping the red states.

    If the blue states are to win even a limited victory, they must score a knockout blow quickly because they would be depending on the military, and the military would be depending heavily on compromised supply chains. Current fuel and ammunition would be critical.

    Could blue states conquer red states and reestablish the Union under a single-party government? No. That’s asking too much of an undermanned military. The red states and red counties have the advantage of a huge land mass, interior lines of communication, rich resources, and plenty of motivation.

    If the red side did prevail, the coastal ports would be allowed to trade under MFN with the red states, but they would have to form their own governments and leave the Union. Nor could the proscribed ports have any strategic combination with foreign powers nor with each other. D.C. bureaucracies would be broken up and shipped to disparate locations to limit the concentration of power.

    With the major coastal ports departed, a center-right coalition would remain that could also stabilize the border with Mexico—and don’t be surprised if Canada’s interior asks to join. The idea could spread like wildfire in Canada and solve any future problems that red states might have with Canada’s porous border. The price would be more war in North America, and China would almost certainly take the opportunity to seize Taiwan.

    I’m not advocating for or against breakup. I’m just pointing out that the coherent strategies for breakup on both sides will likely lead to conflict, and the blue states would inevitably try to drag the military into it. Any version of victory would require herculean effort and still leave our overseas interests vulnerable.

    Some historical perspective: the Mayan states collapsed because overpopulation led to war, and they subsequently poisoned their opponents’ reservoirs, resulting in total catastrophe. Mayan civilization never recovered. A blue-red war could have similar unintended consequences. China and Russia are watching.

    This is a subject that demands sober reflection.

    Oh, did I mention nukes? If we decide to split, we better understand the risks.

    1. Diogenes – some interesting ideas here. Overall, though, your points make me think there would be too much conflict and disorganization to make the whole thing worth it. Maybe two generations hence in the red portion would benefit, but there would be hell to pay in the interim, and there is no guarantee of such benefit. The other thought that comes to mind is: what if we run this simulation backwards. Like, create a super-state consisting of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico? If such a thing could be accomplished and the central government could be pared back and become more efficient (say, through a series of beneficial constitutional amendments), it could be a nice counterweight to the nascent Sino-Russian alliance.

      But back to the breakup scenario. In my simplistic thoughts, I’ve often thought of a sliver of east and west coasts connected by a thin band across the north, which would reach down at specific points and scoop in some major cities in the midwest and east while leaving the rural areas alone. Is that not a possibility?

      P.S. A word about upstate NY and downstate IL . . . they have much in common with outstate MN. I wanted to say that because I like saying outstate. You could add the Republican T in PA, eastern OR and WA, and so on.

      1. Kansas writes, “there would be hell to pay in the interim, and there is no guarantee of such benefit.”
        Yep, wars are usually far more costly and unpredictable than anticipated. Plenty of recent examples on that.

        Kansas: “create a super-state consisting of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico?”
        I think the Founding Fathers agreed with you. They unsuccessfully invaded Canada.

        Kansas: “I’ve often thought of a sliver of east and west coasts connected by a thin band across the north, which would reach down at specific points and scoop in some major cities in the Midwest and east while leaving the rural areas alone.”
        I fear they would use the long border to flood us with all things illegal.

        Kansas: “A word about upstate NY and downstate IL . . . they have much in common with outstate MN… You could add the Republican T in PA, eastern OR and WA, and so on.
        I agree. The real division is increasingly urban vs. rural. North or south or east or west matter much less now.

        Thanks for your observations, Kansas 🙂

    2. Diogenes,
      I would disagree with you concerning Blue states flooding Red states with the flow of illegal immigrants. Knowing most Red states stance on illegal immigration, I think that would be a deterrent. And as we have clearly seen Blue states with sanctuary cities policies, soft on crime policies, seems to attract that thing. I am sure there would be those screaming that Red states are backward, racist rednecks who want to lynch anyone even slightly darker than a shade of white paint. Get that rumor going around, people will believe it and flock to Blue states.
      One point about energy. A lot of cities Red or Blue get their power from a long way off, that whole NIMBY thing. Turn off the power for more than a week, and things get real interesting. Recall the arctic blast that shutdown parts of TX for a week?
      A week or so ago, someone wrote an article from the economic perspective of a national divorce using taxes paid out by a states population vs what they received back in federal aid. Long story short, in the short term Red states feel some economic pain, some more so than others. But in the long term they would be just fine. Granted he did not factor in things going sideways and a real shooting war breaks out. He also noted (based off a poll), people in Red states would be more willing to give up some luxuries, endure a degree of discomfort or loss of convenience.
      While a interesting mental exercise, I hope it remains just that.

      1. These is unlikely to be a national divorce in the form of the country literally spiting in to two separate countries.

        The more appropriate “national divorce” would be to significantly diminish the power of the federal government to homogenize priorities across the country.

        Let California and New York impose the intrusive Big Brother Govenrment that the left wants.
        Let TX and Florida impose the more libertarian govenrment that many of the rest of us want.

        Each of us is then free to try to change our states govenrment or to move to a different state.

        So long as the Federal Government stays out of these issues.

        So slash the federal budget.
        Slash the broad federal role in everything.

        Let states compete with each other.

        1. “Slash the broad federal role in everything.
          Let states compete with each other.”

          That solves the bulk of the problems we face today. The federal government should be involved in only a few things, foreign relations and security being the most important.

          1. I do not trust states – we have lots of problems there.
            But we have more influence with our states, and more ability to vote with our feet and our money.

            1. John, one has to weigh the good and bad. If that is done your negative feelings about states is overwhelmed.

              1. No part of government should EVER be trusted.
                Our distrust for govenrment should NEVER go away.

                There is a difference between accepting that we have a huge problem with the federal govenrment, and pretending that moving responsibilities to the states is anything more than the lessor of two evils.

                So no my concerns will not be overwhelmed.

                1. John, we are on the same page. In business, I draw up contracts recognizing that I can trust no one. At the same time, I realize that no contract is needed when things are going well, only when things are not. That is why I heavily concentrate on that side of the contract.

                  Our government legislators do not write laws to protect the people from dishonesty or protect them from a time when laws should no longer exist.

                  We need business people involved in writing legislation. Lawyers concentrate too much on the law forgetting the most important things. In negotiations, I tell my lawyers to be silent, and I have not signed one contract where I didn’t have the attorney add clauses.

                  1. Government and private actors are NOT even close to the same.

                    I do not do business with people I do not trust – except very rare instances I am forced to – and that nearly always involves government.

                    The purpose of a contract is not to be able to conduct business with people you can not trust.
                    No contract will allow you to do business wit people who can not be trusted.

                    The purpose of a contract is to spell out details of the arrangement so both parties understand them.

                    I have often beleived that I had agreed to one thing and discovered on reading the contract that pro or con I had agreed to something else.
                    When that is the case – you do what the contract requires – or you reach a new agreement.

                    This is not about animus. It is just about conducting business with people – even those you trust.

                    The modern world can not survive unless we trust those we do business with.
                    That does not require us to trust everyone – only those we do business with.
                    We are always free to say no. To go elsewhere or to just not move forward.

                    Governemnt is NOT the same.

                    The default with all government should be no trust.

                    Every single use of force must always be proven necessary.

                    1. You missed the point. Government should be at least as careful with their laws as Good businesses are with their contracts.

                      “Government and private actors are NOT even close to the same.”

                      That is true but that doesn’t mean the former should be sloppy.

                      “I do not do business with people I do not trust “

                      Where money is concerned, trust should not be an issue. The contract remains the same, therefore treat everyone the same. I have have given friends money. I do not write a contract to protect myself. Instead, it is not a loan. It is a gift they can pay back if they wish. I do not wish to enforce a contract with friends.

                      In earlier days I would deal with a handshake. Even with considerable funds there was no problem. Today is different. The NYCJewish diamond brokers will deal with each other with nothing more than a handshake. A man’s word is a man’s bond. Unless things have recently changed a Jewish diamond broker cannot do business with others if he breaks his word.

      2. Kansas wrote, “Knowing most Red states stance on illegal immigration, I think that would be a deterrent.”

        Kansas, you might be right about that. I had not considered it. Good point.

          1. A careful reading of Upstate’s comment supports your comment, Kansas. Maybe new national lines are doable.

            1. Diogenes – the sticking point for many seems to be the possibility of a shooting war, as Upstate put it. I agree with him on two points: (a) absent such a conflict the red states would be willing to put up with a temporary diminution on creature comforts for the sake of being freed of blue state policies, which are getting ever more authoritarian and intolerant of dissent, and (b) the mere possibility of such a conflict makes starting down that path inadvisable.

              I would only add: if the blue state authoritarianism continues, things might eventually become intolerable to the point where many people, maybe most, will find even that risk worth taking.

  6. Sooner or later Hollywood is gonna run out of money if the industry leaders and studios continue to showcase content where all the woke boxes are checked. They are certainly not doing well with half their audience.

    1. In Hollywood as elsewhere money talks, and they have noticed how well Top Gun: Maverick did. With that said the market slippage in the film industry is huge on account of the dominant ideology. Michael Medved wrote a book about this more than 30 years ago called Hollywood vs. America.

  7. This brings up something that I have long hoped that Jonathon Turley would address. Namely the Reynolds v. Sims (1964) decision that mandated that STATE SENATE’S be apportioned by POPULATION. This mandate has driven the Urban/Rural divide and disenfranchised the rural counties in the US. We need to get Reynolds v. Sims BACK in front of the SCOTUS and get the mandate portion of that overturned. It seems to me that under original jurisdiction, it could be put DIRECTLY in front of the Supreme Court without having to go thru the lower courts!

      1. Typically, SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction, which means that the case starts off in a lower court and SCOTUS accepts the case on appeal. But in some cases, such as conflicts between two states, it has original jurisdiction, which means that the case starts off at SCOTUS rather than having to work its way up.

  8. Look, you can’t reconcile or even find common ground with people who differ with you on fundamental goals and values. Can men have babies? Can you end racism by employing racism? Do you risk a nuclear confrontation over a civil war half a world away? If you answer “yes” to any of these, I have nothing in common with you and aren’t likely to ever have anything in common.

    In the microcosm, we have court’s and judges to handle disputes. In the macrocosm we have elections and then, when we lose confidence in them, we have streets and small arms.

    It’s a message as old as history and there will be a winner and there will be a loser. Be a winner and never apologize for that desire because the other side won’t..

    1. Mespo,
      I agree.
      CRT, grooming children, mediocrity vs meritocracy, pronouns, the rewritten works of authors, etc. yes, I want no part of their society.
      But they have shown they will not accept a live and let live like attitude. They want to cancel all of those who will not accept their utopian society.
      As we have seen, there are those who are pushing back.
      And as we have seen, they double or triple down against parents wanting a say in their child’s education.
      All they want is power to force on anyone whom dissents against them.
      Stand up against their tyranny.

  9. O T (slightly) (with credit to Dinesh D’Souza) – Although I hope that Ukraine will survive in its current form, I do not think it is a good idea to demonize Russia and Putin. In fact, if you read Putin’s address to the Federal Assembly on February 21, 2023, he made remarks that many American conservatives would cheer. I will repeat two sections (obviously translated and referring to the relevant page of the official version, found at http://en.kremlin.ru/events/ president/ transcripts/70565:
    at p. 5/37 According to US experts, almost 900,000 people were killed during wars unleashed by the United States after 2001, and over 38 million became refugees. Please note, we did not invent these statistics; it is the Americans who are providing them. They are now simply trying to erase all this from the memory of humankind, and they are pretending that all this never happened. However, no one in the world has forgotten this or will ever forget it. None of them cares about human casualties and tragedies because many trillions of dollars are at stake, of course. They can also continue to rob everyone under the guise of democracy and freedoms, to impose neoliberal and essentially totalitarian values, to brand entire countries and nations, to publicly insult their leaders, to suppress dissent in their own countries and to divert attention from corruption scandals by creating an enemy image. We continue to see all this on television, which highlights greater domestic economic, social and inter-ethnic problems, contradictions and disagreements.
    at p. 7/37 Look what they are doing to their own people. It is all about the destruction of the family, of cultural and national identity, perversion and abuse of children, including pedophilia, all of which are declared normal in their life. They are forcing the priests to bless same-sex marriages. Bless their hearts, let them do as they please. Here is what I would like to say in this regard. Adult people can do as they please. We in Russia have always seen it that way and always will: no one is going to intrude into other people’s private lives, and we are not going to do it, either. But here is what I would like to tell them: look at the holy scripture and the main books of other world religions. They say it all, including that family is the union of a man and a woman, but these sacred texts are now being questioned. Reportedly, the Anglican Church is planning, just planning, to explore the idea of a gender-neutral god. What is there to say? Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. Millions of people in the West realize that they are being led to a spiritual disaster. Frankly, the elite appear to have gone crazy, and it looks like there is no cure for that. But like I said, these are their problems, while we must protect our children, which we will do. We will protect our children from degradation and degeneration.
    Isn’t Putin, for his own motives, holding up a mirror to us – endless, pointess, cruel wars in the Middle East; acceptance of official corruption; undermining traditional instituions?

    1. No, that’s propaganda, not a mirror. It’s pretty sad that you consider it a mirror.

      As a start, pedophilia is a crime, not “normal,” priests aren’t forced to perform gay marriages, and plenty of Americans care about “human casualties and tragedies.”

      1. 1) Pedophelia, which means sexual attraction to children, is not a crime. I assume Putin was referring to efforts to sexualize children in public schools. 2) Although not yet compelled to do so, political pressure is being placed in some places on priests to perform gay marraiges. https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2017/
        june/ swedish-prime-minister-priests-should-be-forced-to-perform-same-sex-weddings 3) Of course many Americans care about war casualties. But the foreign policy establishment of the USA is happy with causing deaths of thousands of innocent people in the Mid-East. How long has the war in Syria been going on?

  10. Fran Drescher and SAG-AFTRA promote “…diversity, inclusion and democracy…” and the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

    SAG-AFTRA is a criminal enterprise and communist union of which violence is the only tool and bargaining chip.

    Fran Drescher and SAG-AFTRA are direct and mortal enemies of the American Thesis of Freedom and Self-Reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Americans and America.

    Freedom does not compel “diversity, inclusion and democracy.”

    Freedom compels free thought, speech, assembly, choice, discrimination, enterprise, “pursuit of happiness,” etc., and a restricted-vote republic.

    Democracy, since inception in Greece and perpetuation in Rome and America, has restricted the vote by the implementation of vote criteria.

    The Constitution was designed to hold dominion, not the unreasonable vote of teeming masses of leeches, dependents and parasites.

    Ben Franklin made it clear if anyone cares to read; never was America designed to be a one man, one vote asylum run by lunatics.

    “[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”

    – Ben Franklin

    Ben Franklin admonished Americans because he knew you couldn’t.

    He understood the destructiveness of false guilt (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia et al. have none).

    He knew your strength and resolve would fail.


        According to delegate McHenry’s account of the exchange that he published in 1803, after Franklin responded to Mrs. Powel’s question with “a Republic, if we can keep it,” she said, “and why not keep it?” And Franklin continued, “because the people, on tasting the dish, are always disposed to eat more of it than does them good.”

        – Buzzkill

        Turnout out was 11.6% in 1788, by design.

        Vote criteria were generally male, European, 21, 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres.

        The Constitution provides the power to legislate vote criteria to States.

        “the people are nothing but a great beast…

        I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

        – Alexander Hamilton

        “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”

        “If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”

        – Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775

  11. We don’t have to worry about boycotting products from California because Californians are boycotting products from their own state. https://dnyuz.com/2023/02/26/even-democrats-like-me-are-fed-up-with-san-francisco/. I believe history is making a turn. The people who left California and brought there politics with them and hoped that a the Democratic plan would be better are now starting to realize that things have now gotten much worse in California. The poor are forced to stay as the deification piles up in the streets. No secession is needed because people are seceding on their own.

    1. TiT,
      CA and CA policies are a perfect example of why woke Leftist polices do not work. They make things worse and at the expense of everyone else.
      You live in a Red State and meet someone who is a transplant from a Blue State, tell them point blank to change their voting habits. Dont turn the successful Red State Blue.

  12. Fran Drescher? Really? The elites seem to have forgotten that they are also fellow Americans. Granted, she has never been a brain trust, going way, way back. Given the direction of modern Hollywood, I don’t care if they go to the bottom of the ocean and film their woke crap. These people are insufferable, we don’t, in fact, need them in our daily lives for anything whatsoever (the people stocking grocery shelves are more important), and I think I am just about done. The privilege and ignorance on display here is incalculable and it is disgusting. If we did split up: do we need to do Eastern/western Germany again? Because that is what we get. I should really, really hope not, and the Hollywood talking heads can pretty much kiss my ***. Yeah. Sequester the peasants, Fran. 🙄🙄🙄 That’ll help in a free country.

  13. I’m fine with a ‘National Divorce’, so long as there is no ‘Alimony, Palimony, or Reparations’ involved. Finalize It Please!

    1. Oh, you clowns get to keep the reparations and those that get that money and all the other money you pay out for the votes they gave you. Who’s gonna pay that tab now? Fran Drescher, Rob Reiner, soros, gates, harvard?…you’ll be fine.

      It’ll be non-stop radical chic.

  14. Turley feeds the “age of rage” with his columns and then acts innocent, as if he’s simply observing it from the outside.

    1. The rage is everywhere, I was almost killed by a WLM group after detouring around a pro-fa group burning a college speaker attempt which was right around the corner from the autonomous region, FAAZ, the Financial Area Autonomous Zone while trying to get to my Ayn Rand book club, which had to be cancelled because the local sportball team’s all-republican city denizens were burning it to the ground after losing the stuper bowl. Fortunately all this temporarily reduced the amount of white on white homicide rate.


  15. Nunca Mas: Cartoonist Scott Adams – pauperized, dehumanized, demonized, and targeted for disappearance over shark-infested waters. They want to make an example of him to silence any potential dissenters. And they fully expect to get away with it. This process has a long history. Fasten your seat belt!

    1. Scott Adams lives in a capitalist society, he chose to post a racist rant, and now he’s living with the consequences.

      1. ATS, you are so thin and meritless. Immediately without thought, you jump to spin. You don’t want to look at yourself in a mirror. I’ll help you. Who wants to be close to people that don’t like them? Think about it.

        I am around black people who are my friends, even though the polls conclude something different. Poll numbers do not represent individuals. Your problem is that you believe poll numbers represent the individual. That is sick.

        What you are saying now represents those who use the polls to generate news and are divisive. It is you. You are the enemy of free individuals.

        Did Scott Adams blame black people? If anything, he blamed you.

                    1. ATS, you seem to believe pointing out your deficiencies is an insult when they exist for you to improve so you can walk among men.

                    2. ATS is this another empty answer to not walk on two legs because you prefer to roll in the dirt?

      2. In a world of losers, that may be the cost of an honest conscience. On the other hand, the cowardly left will have no problem bending to the will of its authoritarian bullies, they’ll do anything for a nickel, it is their religion. Which part of Baltimore do you live in, east or west? Coward, Hypocrite.

    2. @Button the random

      This post was not about Scott Adams, I personally do not care about Scott Adams demented tweeting because he has lost any sense of objectivity, I could give a toss about his cartoon, and you are trying to detract from the actual subject at hand, which even transcends Fran, who was just a starting point for the eventual point made. Nice try, though, I guess. Leftists love to eliminate context due to the fact that it might make the talking points they present utterly and completely irrelevant. As is the case with yours. Stick to the topic, as that is what the rest of us are discussing, or go away.

      1. I think I misinterpreted the above. Sorry. Taking a little break from all of this to clear up the old head.

        1. James: Thank you for your apology. Yes, I believe you must have misinterpreted. I think I should clarify. I don’ think a red/blue national divorce is viable. My sense of our current situatuon is that we are following down the path of Argentina Nunca Mas instead. It could get very nasty since we still have a couple of years left in the Biden regime.

  16. In 2012, I went to the theater and watched a movie called the Hunger Games. I turned to my wife as we were walking out of the theater and said that I could see this happening in the United States in 50 years. I now believe, unfortunately, it will happen much sooner than predicted..

    “Happy Hunger Games! And may the odds be ever in your favor.”

  17. I’m fairly certain the old Warsaw Pact Countries are pining for “the good old days” of the Soviet Union.

  18. I think we reached the need for a national divorce 10 years ago or so and it has nothing to do with the nanny or some kind of floozy GA congresswoman. But I would see a division into thirds:
    1. Atlantis — roughly east of the Appalachian Trail and north of the Mason Dixon line (although parts of it — Cape Cod where I live for example — might petition to join an adjacent Canadian province
    2. California — pretty much as it exists (although counties in the far northeast might join Idaho like eastern Oregon is already asking to do), plus western WA and OR, Clark County NV, AZ south of I-40, NM west of 1-25 and south of I-10 and the El Paso metropolitan area. A little peninsula might sneak up along I-25 somehow and take in Denver and Boulder
    3. United States — Everywhere else (although I can’t see anyone actually wanting Chicagoland)

    Once those things amicably happen (as in Ireland, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, etc. last century), all professor Turley’s concerns about what’s constitutional vanish because while any of the three geographies could adopt any constitution it wanted. I would foresee the remaining United States sticking with the 1787 former United States Constitution as amended over the centuries with the obvious changes, while Atlantis would become the sort of parliamentary system its constituent states already are (single party ruled with the slim possibility of a conservative party someday ruling) and the reconstituted California would be the communist dictatorship it has already become.

    1. I’m predicting a reverse migration to the Rust Belt. That’s the place to be when the water wars begin. Actually, they have already begun.

  19. I liked it better when in grade school geography, we learned about different states by their agricultural products, flora and fauna, temperatures, big cities, special events, tourist spots, etc., not by whether they were red or blue states.
    I liked it better when Disney represented fun, not being bombarded with Disney’s “Loud and Proud” cartoon characters trying to fill little heads with demands for reparations and CRT, -or being greeted by LGBQT Cinderellas.
    I liked it better when kids respected police, firemen, bus drivers, and teachers, and said “Yes, sir” or “Yes, ma’am,” “please” and “thank you”.
    I liked it better when adults kept their differences in check, to be resolved through discussion and negotiation, not physical brawls at baseball games and school board meetings.
    I liked it better when kids had real heroes to respect and emulate.
    I liked it better before Jerry Springer et al started televising provoked fights/brawls between family members, in order to get TV ratings.
    I liked it better when everyone stood in silence and appreciation when the national anthem was played before sporting events.
    I liked it better when MSM (ABC,NBC) did not try to propagandize with more black than white TV anchors for their morning and evening news. (Reminder, U.S. population 67% White, 13% Black)
    I liked it better when Flip Wilson and Jeff Foxworthy could make fun of their own respective races and EVERYbody laughed.
    I liked it better when parents trusted what teachers were telling their kids.
    I liked it better when you had to eat your vegetables before you got your dessert.
    Well, actually, maybe I didn’t like the last one.

    1. Lin,
      Great post!
      And the last line made me chuckle.
      However, seems to me one half of the country would agree with you.
      The other half wants to cancel everything you wrote.

Leave a Reply