You knew that half of Americans were going to be outraged no matter which candidate won. If Hillary had won, you’d likely hear a swell coming from the South, including Texas, of the desire to secede from the Union. But in this case, Trump won the electoral vote, and a group of outraged Californians are proposing secession instead.

After Donald Trump won the race to the White House, people across California took to social media Tuesday night to call for “Calexit” (or California exit), recalling Brexit, Britain’s push to leave the European Union…

The movement has racked up an impressive backer already. Shervin Pishevar, an early investor in Uber and well-known angel investor, said on Twitter that he would bankroll a campaign to make California its own nation if Trump won.

In an interview with CNBC on Wednesday, he confirmed his mission.

“It’s the most patriotic thing I can do,” he told CNBC. “The country is at serious crossroads. … Calling it New California.”

He expressed a desire that California, the sixth-largest economy in the world in terms of GDP, might become a catalyst for a “national dialogue” as the country reaches a “tipping point.”

One nation, two ideals

While this is a broad sweeping unfair generalization, you could say that East and West coasts represent one political side and middle America represents the other. Ever since this article was posted on Facebook, I’ve imagined what a world would look like if the U.S. was broken into three separate countries.

Ideologically, it could be broken into two, but no way East and West coast can truly unite when separated geographically by a different country that used to be part of the same. More likely they would forge an international alliance.

The U.S. has maintained a “cohesive” whole all these years because each part of the country needs what the other parts provide. Back in Civil War era, the factories were up North and the farms were in the South. The factories would’ve had no goods to produce on their own and the farms would’ve had no customers to purchase on their own.

You could argue that the global market has changed this somewhat, with China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, and other countries around the world capable of providing what middle America provides, possibly cheaper.

The unintended cost of separation

I hope this never happens. I don’t like communities, companies, or nations that lack diversity of ideals. Without middle America, I think the Coasts run themselves into the ground with debt from free services. They also lose a powerful connection to the positive side of historical family values. Without the coasts, I think Middle America discriminates, violates civil rights, and damages the earth by depleting resources and pumping poison into the ground.

I wouldn’t want to live in either location without the balancing effect of both ideologies requiring compromise on decision making.

I’m saddened that so many of my friends now feel disenfranchised. That they live with real concern about their safety, well-being, and practical exercise of equal rights of citizenship. This should not be so.

If you are angered by the results, I understand. If you think Hillary should have been elected over Trump, I would argue that you’re ignoring the depth of illegal activity. If you think neither candidate truly deserved to be nominated, I would say that you have a valid point.

My biggest takeaway is that we may need a change to the process of Presidential succession. 4-8 years isn’t working. I vehemently oppose the existing version of Obamacare, but I see how things could go indefinitely if every 8 years the nation overreacts to the flaws of the current President and the new opposite President just wipes the slate clean of all former Presidential initiatives. That’s just hitting the reset button every decade and getting nowhere. There’s going to need to be an adjustment made to that cycle.

I have no suggestions as of yet, but real thought needs to be put into how we build upon each candidacy, rather than waste entire lifetimes undoing each other’s best efforts.

Where do we draw the next line?

If you’re thinking that an exit is the answer, i have a question for you: Where will it end? Where’s the new line in the sand that a nation will not cross? On what issues will you not split over next time or the time after that or a generation later?

The moment one region or state secedes, all parties are a house of cards waiting to fall. You set a precedent that at some point it’s better to separate than to unify. With each new challenge, crisis, and catastrophe, we would all face new opportunities to secede based on the difficulty of unity.

If California leafy, who would be next? And within California itself, what happens when geography poses unconquerable differences? Do you split again? And again?

I think the point is that you can’t uncross that line, and it’s better to demand more of ourselves than to back out and set a precedent of escape versus compromise.

Have something to say? Click here to leave a comment on Facebook!

Everyone I knew growing up was a partisan voter, and they ALL fell into the category of the GOP. Democrats became taboo – these wild eyed, ex-hippies who’d rather smoke a blunt than go to church (actually, they probably do both). My Republicans never belonged to the NRA-lovers, but they did believe in the right to bear arms as a principle. Of course, I also learned to look at smokers as bad people, so you can imagine how my development went.

I remember when George Bush Sr. ran against the huge head of Michael Dukakis. I knew nothing about politics, except that Dukakis was the “bad man”. What are we teaching our children? Seriously. I demand of myself that I teach my children how to think critically and how to make these decisions on their own.

You’ll likely think that I’ve gone over to the Dark Side. Not true. I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I am also not an Independent (which I classify as one who persistently votes for the Independent candidate). I am not a party or an organization. I am one man who votes his conscience. That means there will be times when I do not cast my vote. I argued for years against voting for the lesser of two evils. The reasoning is that in so doing you are admittedly voting for evil.

The time has come where I recognize that my views have shifted yet again. Rather than refuse to participate because all candidates disappoint me, I tend to be more forgiving of flaws and differing points of view. It’s safe to say that as I’ve aged, I’ve realized that there are often complicated reasons motivating the beliefs and decisions we make. Everything may be simple in objective truth, but we are people, and people are not objective.

Let’s look at the Republicans for a moment. While I have been taught to respect them for their anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and anti-welfare state stances, there are faults to consider as well.

  • There is without a doubt a lack of Republican Presidential candidates who can speak clearly and comfortably and defend their views without sounding ridiculous.
  • While Democrats waste billions on lazy people, Republicans waste trillions on killing people
  • The Republicans core economic value is War… to start a war is to increase federal spending on defense, which is to create more jobs in the defense/technology sector which thus benefits the economy.
  • Republicans are not concerned enough with the overwhelming problem of pollution and depletion of natural resources. Republicans lack the vision to realize that if they don’t severely regulate pollution and dumping, they will have no world to rule.
  • Republicans take advantage of the Church to earn votes.

These are only a few criticisms which I can think of immediately. And although I have “seen the light” and refuse to vote Republican for the sake of voting Republican doesn’t mean that I have performed the equally stupid reaction of voting only Democrat.

No, to earn my vote, each candidate must take a stand on the major issues and clearly define what that stance will be. They must convince me that they are more than just hot air. They must do more than look good and offer the expected yet ridiculous motivational speeches that each candidate feels compelled to give.

Barack Obama

Then Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would be neck and neck, with John Edwards trailing with only 25% of the popularity of either one of the others. I have a bet going with Mystery SEO (no links again!) on who will win. We’re not betting for anything except the privilege of being “right.” Our selections were made based on our expectation of national popularity, not personal preference. Mystery SEO thinks John Edwards is a shoe-in. I think Hillary is more likely, though I’d rather see Obama in the White House if I had my choice.

As usual, no candidates really impress me, but I’ve got a good feeling about Obama. Unfortunately, I think America is still too racist for a black President.

It’s a sad day in Texas. Someone running for governor has to be elected. For the first time in history, there are four candidates running neck and neck for the prize. How can there be four? Simple. No one is qualified. One of the largest states in the Union, and we can’t come up with a better list of potentials than Chris Bell (Democrat), Rick Perry (Republican), Kinky Friedman (Independent), and Carole Keeton Strayhorne (Independent).

Let’s start off with the worst. Carol Keeton Strayhorne’s campaign slogan has been “One Tough Grandma.” Hmm. That’s great. I don’t want a tough grandma running the second largest state in the country. During the gubernatorial debate pictured above, she couldn’t even answer the question, “Who is the current President of Mexico?” If a Texas governor doesn’t know that, then who are they going to speak with when we have immigration issues? It’s way too late in the game for that kind of ignorance.

Then there’s Kinky Friedman. Sure, his name sounds kinda cool. Whoopee. He wants to legalize gambling and marijuana, and he’s depending on 18-28 year olds to vote him in. Any time your primary constituents fall into that age range, it means you’re not focusing on the real issues.

What about incumbent governor Rick Perry? Are you kidding? They don’t come looking much more fake and underhanded than Mr. Perry. I will show respect to whoever is elected, but during the election process, we must determine who is qualified and deserving. Unfortunately, Mr. Perry has screwed up the funding for public schools. He is responsible for practically seizing land for highway building and then awarding the building contracts to foreign companies. There’s nothing about him that says, “I am a respectable man.” Both George W. Bush and Anne Richards were better governors than Mr. Perry.

Finally, we have Chris Bell, who, by default, may be the best choice in this year’s election. Bell is hardly the moral standard. He adamantly supports gay rights and embryonic stem cell research. These are non-optional in my book, which eliminates Chris Bell immediately.

Who, then, should run the state of Texas? Luckily, the Texas Railroad Commissioner and Comptroller have more power than the actual governor has. Hopefully, we will survive the next term without major damage despite the results of this Fall’s election.

It seems that Israel cannot be mentioned without some comment about conflict or war. To many poorly educated people, this fact seems proof of Israel’s fault. After all, one country with so many enemies cannot be in the right, can it? I am not Jewish, but I respect and honor the Jewish people. And no, the conflict does not prove Zionism or any other far-fetched scheme. It boils down to religious differences that stem from a family feud. Arabs tend to hate Jews and Jews tend to look down on Arabs. This is where Biblical history plays an important role.

There are no Arab manuscripts that date as old or older than Judaic manuscripts. The Muslim faith came into being centuries after Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead. Muslim revisionist history came into play afterward to combat the claims of one branch of the Middle Eastern family. Thousands of years before Christ, Abraham had two sons: Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was firstborn to Abraham, but Isaac was the firstborn through Abraham’s actual wife, Sarah. That Ishmael was born at all was the result of a lack of faith and trust in God’s word by Abraham and Sarah. They tried to help God out by having Abraham sleep with a maid. God had promised to give Abraham a land. God promised to make Abraham’s descendants as numerous as the sands of seashor and the stars in the night sky. Sarah was barren, and they saw no way for God’s promises to come true. And although Ishmael was born out of wedlock, I believe God has a special love for Ishmael and his descendants (Arabs).

Sadly, Ishmael and his mother were cast out of the family, left to survive in the desert. God spared their lives and made them prosper, but the family wounds never healed. Brother against brother, for thousands of years. One received the promised inheritance – a beautiful land now encompassing both Israel and Palestine. The other was left to fend for himself. One possesses the holy city of Jerusalem. The other will stop at nothing to take it away. There is nothing more dangerous than sibling rivalry. Both clamor to convince the world of their right to the holy land (the land of their forefather Abraham’s inheritance). But all historical evidence points to Israel’s sovereign right to the land. I do not say that spitefully. I regret that Ishmael was cast away.

But in that part of the world and in that time, the father was king of the family. His word was law. It was the Romans who drove the Jewish people out of Israel in the first century A.D. It has been called the Diaspora (dispersion). Nearly 1900 years later, Israel officially reclaimed its land and became recognized as a sovereign nation. In the meantime, all the surrounding Arab nations have thousands of years of wounds, malice, and vengeance left unhealed. Little bitty Israel has stood firm despite the hatred of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and more. True, Israel has had the support of the United States of America, but not much else. One little country in the middle of a hornets’ nest of violence. Yet they have a supernatural protection.

A nation of their size in their situation should have been wiped off the map within a couple years. Yet they stand. Before you follow the liberal bandwagon and criticize Israel, take the initiative to do an independent study of the events leading up to today’s war and find out for yourself why everyone but America seems to hate Israel. Sometimes, the majority is proof of logic and sound reasoning. Other times, it is the majority that has weak character and follows the crowd of popular opinion. It is in those moments you must take your responsibility seriously to know who you listen to and what you believe. Israel occupies such a small sliver of the Middle East, yet militant Muslims will fight to the death to take it back.

Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia each contain so much more land that you could fit dozens of Israels inside them, if not more. So why do they argue and go to war? Is the land itself holy? Do they really hate Jews? Who does the land belong to? These are the right questions.