It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Californian independence

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 8 2006 @ 10:38 AM
If Kosovo & Metohija is annexed from Serbia and gets recognized by the EU and US as an independent state this will have a major effect on other parts of the world ( Catalonia, Basque, Georgia etc).


Kosovo in America
By Cliff Kincaid | May 8, 2006

The outcome of this controversy is the survival of America as we know it.

Many Americans scoff at the idea that Mexican-rights activists might someday
reclaim most of the Southwest United States as Mexican territory. It can't
happen here, they say. But it is happening in Serbia, where the United
Nations (with the assistance of the U.S.) is working to grant autonomy or
even independence to Kosovo, a province of Serbia, on the grounds that it
has an Albanian majority.

As a U.N. press release put it, "Independence and autonomy are among options
that have been mentioned for the province, where Albanians outnumber Serbs
and others by 9 to 1." Our media also highlight this fact.

But as William Dorich notes, in our AIM Report, "The media tell us that
Albanians are a majority of Kosovo but never publish the fact that 40
percent are illegal aliens who cross the border into Serbia as easily as
Mexicans cross our borders each night in San Diego." Dorich notes that Serbs
have been made nearly extinct in Kosovo but were a majority of the
population in 1939.

The question then becomes: what kind of precedent will Kosovo set for the
rest of the world, including the U.S.? The process entails the dismemberment
of a sovereign nation state. Could it happen here?

It's not as far-fetched as you might think. If the United Nations continues
its support for "indigenous peoples," as the Mexicans in the Southwest U.S.
define themselves, the U.S. could become the next Serbia, and the Southwest
could become the next Kosovo.

The outcome of this controversy is the survival of America as we know it.

If Albania can have two countries why can't Mexico ? They have the numbers to elect a Mexican leader and hold a referendum on Californian independence.

posted on May, 8 2006 @ 11:08 AM
My understanding of it is that entering the US Union is a one-way trip so no state can leave. Several precedents have settled this, the main one being the Civil War.

posted on May, 8 2006 @ 11:53 AM

Originally posted by blablablaxyz
If Albania can have two countries why can't Mexico ? They have the numbers to elect a Mexican leader and hold a referendum on Californian independence.

Interesting idea, but the DC power structure will not allow California to secede and would use all military might (including UN forces I believe) to ensure this did not happen.

The California Republic (res-publica: concern of the people) was formed in 1849. Here is the flag of that Republic:

And here is the text of their constitution dated 1849.

Wikipedia says this:

The California Constitution is the document that establishes and describes the duties, powers, structure and function of the government of the U.S. state of California. The original constitution, adopted in 1849 by the California Republic prior to California's attaining U.S. statehood in 1850, was superseded by the current constitution, which was ratified in 1879.


Unlike most constitutions, the California Constitution is quite long at 110 pages. [...] The length has been attributed to a variety of factors, such as lack of faith in elected officials and the fact that most initiatives take the form of a constitutional amendment. Many of the individual rights clauses in the state constitution have been construed as providing rights broader than the Bill of Rights in the federal constitution.

So the California Republic has their own constitution, but in entering the US power structure, it gave up that constitution, or so we are told.

As any good American knows, The Bill of Rights was not meant to list only those rights which men are entitled to, but just a few which needed stating. Soverign men on a land where there is no king (as in America) do not need to list their rights and are entitled to all rights and actions which do not harm others. Obviously there is resistance to any Republic within the US territories delineating their rights further, as shown in this quote above. Californians are supposedly "silly" for listing their rights more clearly. Also there is typically a cultivated ambiguity regarding which Constitution a person is speaking about.

This Republic's original Constitution was replaced after the civil war, when the entire US came under admiralty law of those nations that financed that war, and which led the industrial revolution (UK).

Here is the California seal, which clearly shows Minerva, the Roman goddess of wisdom. Notice also that she is subjugating the California Republic and it's Great Bear. You notice the many waters in the great seal, indicating of course the bays and also the Sacramento river. Admiralty law is overseen by foreign nations who control the waters (or their agents, as in the case of the US), and thereby control those Republics which touch those waters, i.e. California, which is controlled by the DC US power structure. In essence, the California republic is under Admiralty (maritime) law, enforced and controlled by the DC corporation. Therte is really no such thing as a "judge" in the CA California State structure as it exists now, only magistrates and barristers. These courts operate under color of law, not actual law.

No, there will be no independence for California. Minerva will not allow it.

[edit on 8-5-2006 by smallpeeps]

posted on May, 14 2006 @ 03:43 PM

If california ceceeds from the union, does that mean Im no longer an American citizen, since both I and my mother were born there?

Seriously, Mexican claims to california are pretty dubious, if you go by their native people/Atzlan theory. California and the southwestern US were never part of the pre-european Mexico. California was inhabited by various Indian tribes not part of the Aztecs.

California only became part of mexico through the imperialitic Spanish creation of the state. Thus taking california back for mexico is in effect taking back a former colonial aquisition for another imperially created empire, mexico.

But of course, try telling that to la raza. if they want california, let them take it. The people with money will leave like they have been doing, and the state will become a run down dump like mexico.

posted on May, 14 2006 @ 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

if they want california, let them take it. The people with money will leave like they have been doing, and the state will become a run down dump like mexico.

Quickly, before "the big one" hits and ruins our entire economy. It would also be nice to cut the liberal power structure in this country in half. All red states except NYC!

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 01:46 AM
Yes because you red states are running America so well right now!

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 02:15 AM
(really AWSOME contribution SmallPeeps...............
applause to you )

That was informative............well done I say....

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 11:08 AM

Originally posted by theRiverGoddess
(really AWSOME contribution SmallPeeps...............
applause to you )

That was informative............well done I say....

Thanks RG!

Actually when I read what I wrote, I feel a twinge of regret because these issues are beyond the pale of what most Californians or Americans are aware of and really, they imply a whole miserable future. Californians on the whole are not protected by their Gov't. I get glassy stares from people when I try to explain this to people in daily life. Generally I don't bother.

For example, we see now how the US will use their "Economic Hitmen" (as John Perkins calls himself in his book of same name) and how these agents will go into third world countries and set them up with huge, financed public works projects. Then, we essentially OWN those countries as they pay off that project (with resources of course) for the next 30 years or so.

Well, that's similar to the case of California. The federal entity sees itself as having made California so great. It's the central valley water project (and specifically the dams in Shasta and Oroville, etc) that make California possible. I won't theorize here about how California could be wrecked, because I love this Republic too much, but suffice to say that if the Federal Gov't ever wanted to punish Californians in the event that they did try to secede from the union, it wouldn't be tremendously difficult. The mindset would probably be "We built your state when you joined the union, and we can wreck it if you leave."

Good primer on water situation here:

The distribution of California’s population does not reflect water availability. Water is plentiful in the North, but not in Central and Southern California, where it is most needed. To remedy this problem, the state, with assistance of federal government, constructed an elaborate network of dams, reservoirs, pipes, pumps and canals.
The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, known as the "Bay-Delta", is the core of California’s water supply, providing water to two-thirds of state residents and more than 7 million acres of farmland. Bay-Delta water supplies 16 million people in Southern California and supports the region s $450 billion-a-year economy. It is also crucial to the state’s agriculture industry, which grows 45 percent of the country’s produce, but is very water-intensive, consuming 80 percent of California’s developed water.

Of course that's just my .02. I do appreciate the Union and I am obviously a taxpaying member of it, but the idea of California being an independent republic without its waterways is decieving because the whole state is run by the aqueduct. If that goes, then tens of millions of people are without water and these people would surely beg to rejoin the union and get water. Water is the key to understanding California. "The Water Seekers" and "Cadillac Desert" are two good books to read along these lines.

Could Mexico irrigate the whole state? Chances are, it's be in sad shape by the time they "took over" if that's their plan.


Another good report on California water:

[edit on 15-5-2006 by smallpeeps]

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 11:12 AM
Take it from a Southern boy born and breed.....joining the USA is like joining the dont get out.....we tried

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 11:29 AM
California has talked about secession in the past.

One link.

Another link

How ironic that they should talk about secession today when they sided with the North during the Civil War to preserve the Union.

If they don't have a desire to be part of the United States them let them go and when things go bad for them (i.e. droughts, earthquakes floods etc.) then they can forget about US aid. Let them take care of themselves if they think they can.

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 12:36 PM

The economy of California is a dominant force in the economy of the United States, with California paying more to the federal system than it receives in benefits.

it would be the rest of the country that would lose out if california left the union IMHO.. but the chances of this ever really materializing are quite remote i would venture.

[edit on 15-5-2006 by TONE23]

[edit on 15-5-2006 by TONE23]

[edit on 15-5-2006 by TONE23]

top topics


log in