British villagers act like it's 1776, declare independence over mass-migration plans



The people of a quaint English village took a dramatic step on July 4 toward possibly seceding from the United Kingdom over the Labour government's plans to dump over a thousand military-age male migrants in their backyard.

The Home Office announced late last month that the leftist government was considering turning Ministry of Defence Bicester — an inactive military base roughly 2 miles away from Piddington in the southeast English county of Oxfordshire — into a "largely self-sufficient" destination for "people seeking asylum."

'I want my kids to grow up safe.'

The Home Office noted that the site would operate for at least 10 years; be used as a destination for single adult male migrants between the ages of 18 and 65, many of whom "arrived in the U.K. by an illegal route"; be run by "an experienced, specialist provider of asylum accommodation"; and have 24/7 security.

The BBC reported that the Home Office plans to house 1,250 migrant men at the Bicester base. The population of the migrant base would therefore be roughly 250% greater than the population of Piddington, which was 358 as of 2021.

The site, which migrants will apparently be able to enter and leave at their pleasure, would reportedly be within earshot of an existing play area for children and families.

Calum Miller, the Liberal Democrats MP for Bicester, said in a June 26 letter to the minister for border security and asylum that "this is the wrong location for such a facility."

"I cannot understand how the Government could consider this rural location an appropriate site to house over 1,000 people," Miller added.

RELATED: 'Islamophobia': Pakistan-born MP attacks Restore colleague for exposing Muslim rape gangs to Joe Rogan

Ben Montgomery/Getty Images

Protesters have in recent days taken to the streets of Bicester — a town with a population of 56,200 just northwest of Piddington — to express their concerns over the safety of the nearby base's transformation into a stomping ground for foreign military-age men.

Kelsey Day, a mother who attended the protest with her three sons and husband, told the BBC, "We're not against migrants coming over here, but they should come legally."

"We don't know who these men are, we don't know where they're from and what they're about," Day continued. "I want my kids to grow up safe."

Another protester identified only as Sam blasted the use of the site as a "male-only dumping ground."

"I feel we're constantly being called racist, and that's not the case. I don't care what color you are or where you come from; if there is a risk to my children, that's enough for me," Sam said.

The people of neighboring Piddington — some of whom are not only worried about rapacious foreigners skulking around their village but about a possible devaluation of their real estate — have gone a step further in their opposition to the proposed migrant accommodations.

Taking a page out of the book of rebels across the Atlantic 250 years ago, the village voted on July 4 to hold a referendum on seceding from Britain. According to the Express, 175 adult villagers voted in favor of holding the independence vote, and only seven voted no.

Parish Council Chair Tim McNally told the Express, "We had an incredible result with almost two-thirds of the village voting — the rest were children — and an acceptance of 96%. It was truly astonishing."

"Self-determination is what people want whilst they are being ignored and driven into a corner. This is a natural human instinct and reaction," McNally continued. "The Principality of Piddington, the village that roared, will put together their council and representatives to empower themselves."

McNally's plan is to take the result to Cherwell District Council and his member of parliament and — in the event of a successful leave referendum and subsequent declaration of independence — notify the U.S. ambassador and, ultimately, President Donald Trump.

The Home Office statistics show that at the end of March 2026, 48,758 foreigners were awaiting an initial decision on their asylum claims, and 97,519 foreigners were receiving asylum support in the United Kingdom. There were 54,179 single applicants and 43,340 members of family groups receiving government support at taxpayers' expense.

UK Home Office

As of the end of March, there were 14 supported asylum seekers per 10,000 residents of the United Kingdom. In the North East and North West of England, however, the numbers are much higher — 26 and 25 foreigners supported per 10,000 residents.

In addition to the proposed migrant base in Oxfordshire, the Home Office is planning possible migrant accommodations in the counties of Essex, North Yorkshire, and Suffolk.

The leftist government has also committed to increasing the number of migrants housed at Ministry of Defence Police Wethersfield, a former Royal Air Force base in north Essex, from 800 to 1,220.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Canadian province makes major move for independence — and it's not Quebec



Ottawa and members of the eastern ruling class of Canada have made no secret of their contempt for Canada's resource-rich prairie provinces and their inhabitants, proving time and again their willingness to simultaneously exploit the West's wealth and hinder its progress.

'Albertans are engaged and this is an issue people want to have a say on.'

While the powers that be might not be losing sleep over alienating the residents of these provinces, they could soon lose something far more precious: a province roughly 1.56 times bigger than California that's home to over 5 million people, vast natural beauty, the fourth-largest proven oil reserves in the world, a large variety of valuable metallic and industrial minerals, and Atlanta's former NHL franchise.

How it started

Canadians — not so much those in the 18-to-34 age bracket, who largely voted Conservative, but those over the age of 55 — decided last year to award another four years to the Liberal government that in the preceding years oversaw a historic growth of the federal deficit, numerous tax hikes, an unprecedented influx of immigrants, a spike in illegal immigration, rising crime, unanswered church burnings, a worsening housing crisis, and the rise of state-facilitated suicide as a leading cause of death nationally.

Unlike certain progressive regions that got what they wanted in the form of another Liberal government, the Province of Alberta flatly rejected World Economic Forum regular and self-identified "European" Mark Carney and his woke party.

The Conservatives netted 91.9% of the vote in Alberta, the province with the youngest population. The Liberals alternatively brought in a measly 5.4%.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith acknowledged her fellows' frustration at the time, stating, "A large majority of Albertans are deeply frustrated that the same government that overtly attacked our provincial economy almost unabated for the past 10 years has been returned to government."

RELATED: Priest breaks hip — now Canada apparently wants him dead

Elections Canada

While there has long been chatter about Alberta possibly separating from Canada, the 2025 federal election energized the secessionist movement.

Proponents of Albertan sovereignty were further emboldened after the provincial legislature passed amendments to the Citizen Initiative Act, which make it easier to start a referendum, including one on separating from Canada.

On Jan. 2, Alberta's chief electoral officer issued the separatist group Stay Free Alberta's citizen initiative petition, kicking off a 120-day signature collection period and setting the stage for a possible referendum in the event the group could secure at least 177,732 signatures, which amounts to 10% of eligible voters.

How it's going

Stay Free Alberta petitioners, accompanied by hundreds of supporters, delivered the goods to Elections Alberta's Edmonton office on Monday.

The separatists claim to have collected 301,620 signatures, state media reported. Another 1,500 signatures were allegedly late in coming owing to problems with Canada Post, the nation's strike-happy, government-owned postal delivery service.

Stay Free Alberta leader Mitch Sylvestre told the crowd, "This process shows that Albertans are engaged and this is an issue people want to have a say on."

Elections Alberta confirmed that Chief Electoral Officer Gordon McClure has received the petition and signature sheets from Sylvestre.

The verification is, however, on hold until Justice Shaina Leonard — an appointee of the Trudeau Liberal government — rules on a legal challenge advanced by a pair of Indian tribes that claim the petition process threatens treaty rights. Her decision is expected later this month.

Should the Indians' legal challenge fail, the province will have 21 days to verify the petition.

If deemed successful, the petition will be submitted to provincial officials, who will then decide whether to sign off on a province-wide referendum, which could take place as soon as Oct. 19. Premier Smith previously indicated that if the requisite number of signatures were collected, she would put the question to a referendum.

RELATED: 'AMERICAN INVASION': Flailing Canada PM Mark Carney invokes historical grudge in latest lob at Trump

Leah Hennel/Bloomberg/Getty Images

An Abacus Data survey of 1,000 Alberta adults conducted in late February found that 26% of respondents support Alberta ceasing to be a Canadian province and becoming a sovereign country. Sixty-four percent of respondents signaled opposition, and 9% said they were undecided. The idea of regional independence was apparently most intolerable to those in the 60+ age cohort, 71% of whom signaled opposition.

A poll conducted last month by Canadian state media, whose coverage has largely been critical of the independence movement, said that 57% of United Conservative Party voters — those who back Alberta's current ruling party — would vote for separation. Supporters of the province's socialist New Democrat Party were almost unanimous in their opposition to breaking from the federation and Canada's leftist central power, with 98% saying they would vote against the initiative.

When asked on Tuesday how he would prevent Albertan separatists from succeeding in a possible referendum, Prime Minister Carney said that "there's the rule of law — there's the Clarity Act which has been opined upon by the Supreme Court," and "any referenda in any part of Canada need to be consistent with that."

The Clarity Act sets out the conditions under which the federal government would negotiate the separation of a province.

Carney, who also appears hopeful that the Indian tribes' legal challenge might prevail, added that Ottawa will in the meantime act "in the spirit of cooperative federalism, making the country work, making it work for Albertans, making it work for indigenous peoples, making it work for all Canadians."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A one-way national divorce: Anarchy for them, coercion for us



Imagine the Confederates attacking Fort Sumter in April 1861 and Abraham Lincoln negotiating terms of separation instead of mustering troops. We would be two separate countries. In a limited but real sense, we now live in two countries anyway — because Donald Trump has ceded ground to blue-state mobs.

States like Minnesota, working in tandem with local politicians to obstruct a basic federal function — protecting national sovereignty — are latter-day Confederates. Blue states claim the power to nullify federal immigration enforcement inside their borders. That raises a question no one in Washington wants to answer: If blue states can thwart national sovereignty to protect illegal aliens, why can’t red states remove them?

Blue jurisdictions unify behind the proposition of protecting illegal aliens. Red jurisdictions rarely unify behind protecting Americans from political persecution.

This fight doesn’t hinge on Minneapolis or the specific riots that ended with two anti-ICE agitators dead. It reflects a sustained, coordinated campaign across blue cities: street militants, local Democrats, and friendly judges working in concert to shut down immigration enforcement. The activists don’t negotiate over “rules of engagement.” They aim to ban enforcement itself, at least anywhere Democrats hold power. Blue states now run a neo-Confederacy against one of the few legitimate functions of national government.

Now look at what happens on the other side of the divide. Some weak-kneed Republicans — James Comer of Kentucky among them — float the idea that Trump should leave blue cities to stew in their own sanctuary mess, as if the locals will eventually revolt. That fantasy collapses on contact with reality. Worse, ceding sovereignty to blue states hasn’t even produced more deportations in red states.

Courts have enjoined nearly every state statute that tries to treat illegal presence as a state crime. If red states attempted full-spectrum crackdowns under a Democrat president, the same judicial buzz saw would cut them down.

The result: Democrats can block federal law regardless of who sits in the White House, while red states can’t protect themselves when Democrats run the executive branch.

That asymmetry flows from something simple and ugly: Republicans don’t believe their own promises the way Democrats believe theirs. Republicans talk problems to death. Democrats build institutions.

Democrats staff agencies, cultivate prosecutors, and train judges to pursue a shared mission. Republicans often appoint people who treat their “mission” as career management and donor service.

Democrats built parallel systems designed to frustrate immigration enforcement under an opposing president. Conservatives in red states built little beyond press releases and campaign slogans.

RELATED: Memo to Trump: Stop negotiating and ramp up deportations

Photo by Sean Bascom/Anadolu via Getty Images

Democrats in Minnesota and elsewhere have effectively executed the state interposition James Madison described in Federalist 46.

“The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices … would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments,” Madison wrote. “And where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

So the first step is to stir public “disquietude.” Then teach “repugnance” toward federal action. Encourage refusal to cooperate with “officers of the Union.” Then use the governor, legislature, and adjacent states “in unison” to create obstacles so severe that the federal government hesitates to enforce the law.

Blue states have followed that script with discipline. They align the branches. They coordinate the message. They deploy local officials to deny cooperation. They rely on judges in blue jurisdictions to shred the Immigration and Nationality Act, even when Congress tried to limit judicial interference, and they order illegal aliens released from custody.

The political class says the quiet part out loud. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) invoked Fort Sumter to describe his interposition against the federal government. Mayor Jacob Frey (D) declared that Minneapolis “does not, and will not, enforce federal immigration law.” Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner threatened to “hunt down” ICE agents he believes violated civil liberties, calling them “wannabe Nazis,” and promised to identify them and pursue them.

RELATED: Civil war chatter rises when Democrats fear losing power for good

Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images

Blue jurisdictions unify behind the proposition of protecting illegal aliens. Red jurisdictions rarely unify behind the proposition of protecting Americans from political persecution. Where did red-state leaders stand when the Biden Justice Department went after pro-lifers for praying outside abortion clinics? Where did they stand when federal authorities treated ordinary citizens like criminals for walking through the Capitol after barriers and rope lines moved?

Democrats now operate by a new rulebook: anarchy for their people, coercion for ours.

Republicans still operate as if the old system can save them. Even when a red-state leader shows spine, he often stands alone — without a legislature willing to act, without an attorney general willing to litigate, without courts willing to defend state interests.

Watching blue states succeed at sabotaging immigration enforcement under Trump should alarm everyone. A darker problem looms: the next Democrat Justice Department won’t limit itself to immigration. When it turns its machinery against Americans again, red states won’t have Madison’s “in unison” design ready to defend their citizens. They will prove as impotent against federal coercion as they have been against the importation of millions of illegal aliens.

Americans now live like second-class citizens while illegal aliens enjoy first-class protection — because the party that claims to represent Americans has failed at the most basic task of representation: fighting to win.

Time to redraw America’s borders — cities, counties, and beyond



Maps of the United States haven’t moved much lately. They should.

A cursory glance at historical maps over time — whether in the U.S. or globally — shows the dynamic movement of political boundaries. Since the birth of the United States, new states have been carved out of existing ones, county lines redrawn, and so on. Nowadays, though, aside from the occasional annexation or incorporation, boundaries have become relatively static.

Next time a state like Illinois comes crawling to Congress for a bailout, federal lawmakers should make border reorganization part of the deal.

That’s a sign of stagnation, not dynamism. And it needs to change.

Similar to how failing public schools precipitated the school choice movement, the failure of municipalities is spawning a growing movement for secession, annexation, and political reorganization.

Liberating red America

The municipal secession movement already has its “Lexington and Concord moment” in Baton Rouge and St. George, Louisiana. Fueled by failing schools and rampant crime, a section of East Baton Rouge Parish began its long, litigative battle for secession. In 2024, its work paid off. The parish successfully seceded from the consolidated county government, forging the new city of St. George, Louisiana, which is now the fifth most populous city in the state.

It won’t be the last.

Several local secession movements are emerging in conservative regions across the nation that are under the thumb of Democrat governments, with little hope of initiating regime change at the ballot box due to current districting laws.

The “Greater Idaho” movement, for example, is growing in conservative Eastern Oregon, now encompassing 13 counties that have approved measures to secede from deep-blue Oregon and be annexed by Idaho.

In rural Illinois, 33 counties have passed referenda seeking to leave the state entirely. Some want to form a new state, and others propose annexation by Indiana. Lawmakers in Indiana even established a formal boundary adjustment commission earlier this month to explore the idea.

Northern California’s long-standing movement to form a new “State of Jefferson” could one day merge with similar efforts in Southern Oregon.

Unchaining red municipalities

At the municipal level in large, deep-blue cities, purple-red neighborhoods like Staten Island in New York City or Buckhead in Atlanta could lead the charge for de-annexation.

Even in ultra-liberal cities like Austin, the de-annexation movement is gaining ground. The Lost Creek neighborhood, forcibly annexed in 2015, had had enough. Higher taxes, dismal city services, and left-wing pathologies drove residents to demand freedom. The Texas legislature intervened, passing a bill that allowed Lost Creek to vote itself out. It did — and won. More neighborhoods may follow.

This is the way it should be done, with the state stepping in to rescue disaffected neighborhoods from mismanaged cities.

Where cities have collapsed — Detroit and Baltimore come to mind — state governments should consider carving up failed urban zones and allowing them to reorganize under fresh charters. Let those areas be resettled under new leadership, new institutions, and new expectations.

In places where Democrat stronghold cities dominate entire counties — often electing radical officials who impose their ideologies on rural areas — states must step in.

In Harris County, Texas, radical leftist Lina Hidalgo runs the show from Houston. In Travis County, home to Austin, Soros-backed District Attorney José Garza applies “justice” as his donors see fit.

County residents who live outside of the big cities calling the shots would be much better served by county officials who reflect their values — not the radicals deeply planted in their city halls. They deserve a way out.

Bankruptcy poses an opportunity

States and municipalities filing for bankruptcy pose a tremendous opportunity to redraw the lines. In 2023, for example, Wisconsin’s GOP-controlled legislature bailed out bankrupt Milwaukee. The legislature could have liberated neighborhoods that never wanted to be annexed by Milwaukee in the first place. They missed the opportunity, however.

RELATED: ‘Municipal conservatism’ offers hope to crime-ridden blue cities

Photo by Matt Gush via Getty Images

Next time a state like Illinois comes crawling to Congress for a bailout, federal lawmakers should make border reorganization part of the deal. Downstate counties could be annexed by neighboring red states. Bailout in, blue control out.

During the Civil War, when Virginia seceded from the Union, West Virginia was born — its counties carved out and reorganized under federal protection. Today, as California’s officials promise to defy federal law and actively rebel against national authority, it may be time to ask: If rebellion defines California’s government, why not liberate its non-rebellious counties?

Beyond the US

Even national boundaries are up for reconsideration, too. That may sound radical, but it’s happened before.

Canada’s strange political experiment is showing signs of collapse. The ruling class in Ottawa derides the very existence of their country — obsessed with “stolen land” narratives and hostile to their own national culture. Their last remaining shred of civic unity is anti-Americanism.

But not all Canadians share that view.

The prairie provinces — Alberta and Saskatchewan — stand apart. Their culture, economy, and values are more closely aligned with those of the American Midwest than with those of Toronto or Quebec. Suffocating under anti-energy, anti-farmer policies, Alberta, in particular, is ripe for annexation.

Let’s add another star or two to the flag. The cowboy provinces would be a better fit in the U.S. anyway.

No borders are forever

Existing city, county, state, and national borders are not sacrosanct. If history is any guide, they will eventually change.

The only question is whether we’ll wait until the change is forced upon us — or whether we’ll act while there’s still time to do it peacefully and deliberately.

The map will change. Let’s make sure it changes for the better.

Why is Gavin Newsom going full Jefferson Davis?



What triggered the American Civil War were state officials who refused to honor federal law and instead boasted of their open defiance of Washington.

That precedent appears to be the incendiary model for the increasingly erratic behavior of California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D).

Has Newsom accepted the polls and decided to end his political career in a blaze of ideological glory?

He now backs the often-violent protesters in Los Angeles resisting federal enforcement of immigration laws. Newsom labeled President Trump’s use of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain those here illegally “reckless,” “chaotic,” and “eroding trust.”

Does he imagine that this rhetoric is calming the situation or building public trust? Or is he consciously following the model of Confederate President Jefferson Davis?

Does Newsom also support the defiance of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D), who nearly called for official resistance to federal law, declaring, “We will not stand for this”?

— (@)

Bass — who was junketing in Ghana as large swaths of Los Angeles burned in January — used the term “we.” Does she mean the entire city? The LAPD? Will Bass direct city police to block federal officers lawfully enforcing federal immigration statutes?

Does the governor understand that his reckless rhetoric about “states’ rights” empowers violent protesters who torch vehicles, assault civilians, and attack officers?

Consider fellow California Democrat Rep. Norma Torres. She issued a vulgar message to federal immigration officers: “Get the f**k out of L.A.”

Does Torres now believe Los Angeles should become the 21st-century South Carolina, circa 1861, defying the federal government outright?

Is she echoing House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), who recently boasted he would “identify” endangered ICE agents and publicize their personal information? His words: “Every single one of them, no matter what it takes, no matter how long it takes, will of course be identified.”

— (@)

Does Torres view ICE officers — outnumbered, undermanned, and increasingly under siege — as modern-day incarnations of the federal troops cornered at Fort Sumter?

Newsom didn’t stop at siding with street protesters who resist federal authority. He also lashed out again at the Trump administration for warning California that it must comply with federal Title IX executive orders prohibiting biological males from competing in women’s sports.

Trump, in this case, followed the precedent set by the Obama administration, which also threatened to cut off funding from schools to schools that refused to follow its Title IX interpretations.

Here’s how Newsom responded: “Californians pay the bills for the federal government. We pay over $80 BILLION more in taxes than we get back. Maybe it’s time to cut that off.”

— (@)

Cut that off?

Has Newsom read the Constitution?

Is he actually calling for Californians to stop paying federal taxes? Does he understand he just implicitly endorsed felony tax evasion under 18 USC Section 2?

States have no legal authority to withhold federal income taxes from their citizens. In 1861, rhetoric like that nearly destroyed the Union.

RELATED: Lies, flags, and firebombs: Just another ‘mostly peaceful’ riot in LA

Photo by BLAKE FAGAN/AFP via Getty Images

And does Newsom really believe that California’s supposed $80 billion “contribution” somehow bankrolls the federal government? That surplus amounts to just 1.5% of the $5.5 trillion in federal revenue this fiscal year. Hardly enough to “pay the bills.”

California taxpayers are American citizens first, Californians second. Newsom, with his history of championing sanctuary cities and nullifying federal law, increasingly resembles a modern-day George Wallace.

But Newsom, Bass, and Torres aren’t just echoing Confederate-style defiance. They’re also swimming against public opinion.

Despite media theatrics and left-wing outrage, even CBS’ own polling found that 54% of Americans support deportation as a legitimate enforcement tool.

Meanwhile, Newsom’s political stock continues to plummet. Just 2% of Democrats in one recent poll want him as their 2028 nominee. In a broader average of 30 polls, only 27% of Americans view him favorably.

So does Newsom think violent lawbreakers — some burning the American flag while waving foreign ones — are winning over the American public?

Does he understand that 97% of Americans in a Pew Research survey said they favor deporting violent criminal aliens like those seen sowing chaos on the streets of Los Angeles?

Or has he accepted the polls — and decided to end his political career in a blaze of ideological glory?

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally on X.

World Economic Forum regular Mark Carney's win energizes Canadian secessionists in Alberta



In addition to unlawfully declaring martial law to crush a peaceful protest, Canada's Liberal government has in recent years overseen a historic growth of the federal deficit, numerous tax hikes, an unprecedented influx of immigrants, a spike in illegal immigration, rising crime, unanswered church burnings, a worsening housing crisis, coercive medicine, the rise of state-facilitated suicide as a leading cause of death nationally, and the alienation of the western provinces.

The socioeconomic situation is apparently so dire, a recent government report detailing the nation's "downward social mobility" noted that some residents may soon have to turn to foraging and hunting to meet basic food needs.

Canadians — not so much those in the 18-to-34 age bracket who largely voted Conservative, but those over the age of 55 — decided in the federal election Monday to award the same Liberal government another four years. They may have done so at the risk of ultimately losing one or a couple of provinces.

'Large numbers of Westerners simply will not stand for another four years of Liberal government.'

The success of the Liberals — now under the leadership of Mark Carney, the self-identified "European" World Economic Forum regular who all but guaranteed British economic decline while governor of the Bank of England — has breathed new life into the Alberta secessionist movement.

Preston Manning, former leader of the Reform Party of Canada and a former leader of the opposition in the House of Commons, noted ahead of the election, "On account of the mismanagement of national affairs for the past decade by the Liberal government, and its consistent failure to address those issues of greatest concern to Western Canadians, large numbers of Westerners simply will not stand for another four years of Liberal government, no matter who leads it."

"The support for Western secession is therefore growing, unabated and even fueled by Liberal promises to reverse many of their previous positions. Such promises of expediency simply don't ring true in the West," continued Manning. "Who, except the most politically naive, would believe Mark Carney's promises to reverse the Liberal positions on everything from east-west pipelines to identity politics and climate change, when standing behind him is a cabinet of 23 MPs who, just a month ago, were advocating for the very opposite and have done so for years?"

The former opposition leader noted further that while the bottom-up support for western secession is currently centered on the oil-rich prairie provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, "it has the potential to spread to most of B.C., Manitoba, and the adjacent territories depending on how it is organized and led."

A day after the federal election, Alberta lawmakers introduced legislation that would make it easier to start a referendum, including one on separating from Canada, reported CityNews.

The bill lowers the threshold for a citizen-led referendum from 20% of eligible voters to 10% and affords campaigners 120 days rather than 90 days to secure signatures.

'Now is the time to end the abusive and toxic relationship with Ottawa.'

"I believe in Alberta sovereignty within a united Canada," said Alberta Premier Danielle Smith. "However, there is a citizen referenda process that if citizens want to put a question on a ballot and get enough of their fellow citizens to sign that petition, then those questions will be put forward. Again, I don't want to prejudge what a question might be."

While Smith is apparently not a separatist, Alberta — home to the fourth-largest proven oil reserves in the world — has its fair share who might vote to leave.

When pollsters from the Angus Reid Institute asked Albertans whether they would vote to leave Canada if the Liberals were to form the next government, 30% of respondents said yes. Notably, even more Saskatchewan respondents — 33% — expressed interest in leaving the federation behind.

Cameron Davies, the leader of the Republican Party of Alberta, formerly the Buffalo Party of Alberta, is reportedly planning hundreds of town halls to seize upon this discontent and to promote secession.

"After decades of attempts at reconciliation with the rest of Canada, now is the time to end the abusive and toxic relationship with Ottawa and the east that we find ourselves in today," Davies told CityNews.

Davies, a former organizer for Smith's party who also spent five years in the U.S. Marine Corps, told Ricochet, "I am shocked, actually, by the number of people that I've had conversations with — at town halls, coffee meetings, dinner parties — that have said, 'I've never thought myself a separatist, but I think that might be our only choice left.'"

"In the last couple dozen events that we've conducted — low-key organizing, having interesting meetings with diverse groups across the province — the party's membership has exploded by an additional 8,000 in the last three and a half weeks. And that's without a lot of effort," added Davies.

While the future of Davies' party is uncertain, it's abundantly clear from Monday's election results that there's no love lost for the Carney Liberals in Alberta.

With 172 seats required for a majority, the Liberal Party came out on top with 169 seats and 49.3% of the vote. Conservatives, lead by Pierre Poilievre, lagged behind by nearly 480,000 votes, netting 144 seats and 42% of the total vote.

'Threatening to leave the country because you don’t get your desired electoral outcome is counterproductive and unpatriotic.'

Urban hives and regions heavily reliant on the government for jobs or welfare apparently skewed Liberal. Rural, industrial, and younger areas of the country appear to have picked the Conservatives.

The Conservatives netted 91.9% of the vote in Alberta, the province with the youngest population. The Liberals alternatively brought in a measly 5.4%.

Premier Smith said in a statement Tuesday, "A large majority of Albertans are deeply frustrated that the same government that overtly attacked our provincial economy almost unabated for the past 10 years has been returned to government."

"In the weeks and months ahead, Albertans will have an opportunity to discuss our province's future, assess various options for strengthening and protecting our province against future hostile acts from Ottawa, and to ultimately choose a path forward," added Smith.

Former Alberta Premier Jason Kenney recently blasted those considering the path forward that leads Alberta out of Canada, telling reporters, "Threatening to leave the country because you don’t get your desired electoral outcome is counterproductive and unpatriotic. And I don't think it's something that should be thrown around."

"Nor should central Canadian political elites be dismissive of the very legitimate grievances that people in the West and Alberta have about the attacks on our energy industry," added Kenney.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

California secretary of state sets stage for vote on leftist secession from US following Trump's first week



California Secretary of State Shirley Weber announced Thursday that she cleared the proponent of a secessionist movement to begin collecting petition signatures. Should Marcus Ruiz Evans and his CALEXIT team secure 546,651 signatures by July 22, then the proposal will be put to a vote on California's 2028 election ballot.

If at least 50% of registered voters participate in the election and 55% of voters say yes to the question, "Should California leave the United States and become a free and independent country?" then the result would register as a statewide vote of no confidence in the U.S. and an "expression of the will of the people of California" to become an independent country.

According to the California secretary of state's office, the no-confidence vote would not trigger an immediate change in the state's current government or relationship with the union. It would instead result in the formation of a commission to report on the Golden State's viability as an independent country.

The commission might consider the impact of losing free trade with the remaining states in the union; losing over 762,000 full-time jobs with U.S. national security agencies along with tens of billions of dollars annually from national security activity in the state; and no longer having the federal government cover roughly 50% of Californians' medical costs.

The CALEXIT campaign claims on its website that California — which is struggling to deal with the biggest homeless population in the nation, brutal crime, resource strains resultant from illegal alien populations, drought, wildfires, a housing crisis, and various other problems even with the help of the federal government and over $143 billion a year in federal aid — would be better off on its own, in part, because it could foster its leftist values "without facing ridicule or opposition from states with differing ideologies."

In addition to helping make the state an incubator for a single worldview, the CALEXIT campaign claims that independence would enable California to tear up constitutional protections for gun owners as well as to go all-in on climate alarmism and failed immigration policies.

'US Constitution includes neither a mechanism for a state to secede from the United States nor a provision for a single state to be an autonomous nation.'

The campaigners appear to have been emboldened by polling data indicating a sizable portion of the population wanting to abandon the United States of America.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll published around the time President Donald Trump took office in 2017 found that 32% of respondents supported California's withdrawal from America. A March 2017 statewide poll conducted by the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California Berkeley also found that 32% of residents supported secession — but that 68% were opposed.

According to a YouGov poll commissioned by the Independent California Institute ahead of Trump's second inauguration, 61% of respondents indicated that peaceful secession from the U.S. would make Californians' lives better. However, 62% of respondents suggested that secession was impossible.

This sense of impossibility is well-founded. After all, Section 1 of Article III of the state Constitution provides that California "is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land."

The state's Legislative Analyst's Office noted in 2017 that the "U.S. Constitution includes neither a mechanism for a state to secede from the United States nor a provision for a single state to be an autonomous nation within the United States."

Even though secession is a leftist pipe dream, that doesn't mean the state won't waste millions of dollars learning the lesson.

The California secretary of state's office noted that an estimate of the fiscal impact on state and local government will cost taxpayers roughly $10 million in one-time election-related costs. The formation of a commission on California nationhood would cost another $2 million annually to operate.

Evans, the key CALEXIT campaigner, previously worked with Louis Marinelli on the Yes California campaign, which similarly advocated for secession. Marinelli was exposed for having ties to Russia — which apparently was a fan of the secession idea — and told supporters he was seeking permanent residence in Russia because of his "frustration, disappointment and disillusionment with the United States," reported CBS News. Evans later noted in a 2019 blog post that he had become a "useful idiot" for the Russian government.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Democratic lawmaker proposes northern states join Canada because she can't handle Trump win



Following in the footsteps of 19th century Democratic secessionists, New York state Sen. Liz Krueger (D) has raised the possibility of blue states breaking away from the Union for ideological reasons.

Krueger, a Manhattan pro-abortion activist who runs New York's Senate Finance Committee, recently told Politico, "It is not unreasonable to think outside of the box."

Krueger, like other New York radicals, is concerned that the incoming Trump administration will make good on its campaign promises, including the successful enforcement of American immigration law in her state — deporting criminal noncitizens and alleviating the strain they have placed on taxpayer-funded citizen resources.

In September, Krueger told City & State New York that were Trump to win the election, she "would suggest to Canada that instead of us all trying to illegally cross the border at night without them noticing, which is pretty hard because there's a lot of us, that they should instead agree to let us be the southeast province, a new province of Canada."

"I offered, even though I hadn't gotten agreement from other states yet, that I thought New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, would combine and be a great new province as the southeast province of Canada," said Krueger. "Basically everybody in these states are progressive Democrats."

'We would fit in pretty well.'

Apparently, the Democrat who swore an oath to "support the Constitution of the United States" would be more than happy to trade the U.S. Constitution for Canada's highly flexible Charter of Rights and Freedoms and sell out millions of proud Americans.

Trump secured 44.1% (3,484,124) of the votes in New York; 41.9% (739,317) of the votes in Connecticut; 36.5% (1,234,961) of the votes in Massachusetts; and 32.6% (119,393) of the votes in Vermont.

"We would fit in pretty well with the political philosophy of at least most of the Canadian elected officials," said Krueger.

The Democratic lawmaker is apparently unaware that Pierre Poilievre, the populist leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, is poised to crush Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party and the socialist New Democrat Party in the upcoming election. The Conservative Party has outperformed both of the Canadian leftist parties combined in recent polls.

"I propose that this could be an option, and I got back some unofficial responses and heard this is probably sellable in Ottawa," added Krueger.

If the northern incorporation doesn't fly, then the Democratic lawmaker apparently has another unworkable alternative: withhold over $300 billion in federal taxes in order to hamstring the Trump administration.

Even Politico admitting that it's unclear how Krueger's tax-withholding plan might be accomplished, especially when a reactive cut in federal aid would greatly handicap New York.

The Office of the New York State Comptroller indicated in April that in recent years, New York has repeatedly received more from Washington, D.C., than it has paid in federal taxes. In fiscal year 2022, for instance, the state generated $361.8 billion in federal taxes and benefited from $383 billion in federal spending.

When it comes to secession and withholding taxes, Krueger is once again betting on losers.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Rural counties across the US are trying to secede from Dem-compromised blue states



Taken for granted by big-city leftists and tired of ruinous Democratic policies they haven't the numbers to change, conservative counties across the U.S. are looking to join red states or form their own.

In Oregon, over a dozen rural red counties have voted in support of moving the state border westward and joining their conservative compatriots in Idaho — a red state where Citizens for Greater Idaho president Mike McCarter noted the legislature "is controlled by representatives from rural districts, who govern according to the concerns and priorities of rural counties."

"There is a way to get better governance for central and eastern Oregon," said Carter. "The current location of the Oregon/Idaho border was decided 165 years ago and is now outdated because it doesn't match the location of the dividing line between the counties that prefer Idaho's style of governance and counties that prefer Oregon's style of governance."

On the other side of the country, 33 Illinois counties have signaled support for forming a new state, New Illinois, in a manner similar to how West Virginia split from Virginia in 1863. According to the nonpartisan nonprofit New Illinois,

The goal of New Illinois is to see a new state established that truly represents its rural, small town and suburban citizens — a state free from the stranglehold of corruption in Illinois government, which grants disproportionate representation to certain cronies, groups such as public sector unions, and urban areas — in particular, Chicago and Cook County.

Phil Gioja of Watseka, Illinois, recently told the Wall Street Journal that he was among the 72.85% of voters in Iroquois County who voted "yes" in answer to the question, "Shall the board of Iroquois County correspond with the boards of other counties of Illinois, outside of Cook County, about the possibility of separating from Cook County to form a new state and to seek admission to the Union as such, subject to the approval of the people?"

'For the betterment of mankind, you need to pursue it.'

"There's a lot of people in Chicago, and I think that they make a lot of decisions that affect people downstate," said Gioja. Chicago is home to over 40% of Illinois' population. "It's just sending a message that, 'Hey, you know, there's people that would like to be part of the conversation, and often aren’t.'"

The Illinois separation referendum won in seven counties where it was on the ballot Nov. 5. That means that roughly one-third of the state now supports ditching Chicago.

In 2013, voters in 11 Colorado counties were asked whether they wanted to break away and form their own state, "North Colorado." Majorities in Phillips, Kit Carson, Yuma, Cheyenne, and Washington County voted in favor of secession. Exasperated residents in Weld County, Colorado, tried a different angle in 2021, pushing to become part of Wyoming. Colorado has yet to lose ground.

Six Republican state legislators in Maryland representing the Trump-supporting counties Garret, Allegany, and Washington reportedly asked West Virginia in 2021 to consider a merger. Legal historian Cynthia Nicoletti of the University of Virginia School of Law told the New York Times, "I find it hard to imagine that the Maryland legislature would vote to allow them to leave and thus consent to divide the state."

There have been hundreds of similar attempts to break up California, many in hopes of liberating rural counties from the control of the populous Democratic enclaves on the coast.

Dozens of northern Californian counties that voted for Trump in the past three elections are among those that have long contemplated forming the "State of Jefferson." Former Republican state Assemblyman Bill Maze alternatively sought an east-west divorce, cutting the 13 coastal counties off from the remaining 45 counties.

Paul Preston, founder of New California State, issued a proclamation earlier this year that he and others were still keen on creating a new state — not to be confused with Jeff Burum's "Empire" state, which would alternatively consist only of San Bernardino County.

'They have seceded from the Union already.'

San Bernardino County has signaled resistance to Sacramento in other ways in recent years, such as its lawsuit to stop Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's draconian lockdown policies during the pandemic. It is also home to efforts to bolster parental rights as well as resistance to Democrat-supported LGBT propaganda in the classroom.

Burum, a real estate developer from Rancho Cucamonga, recently told CalMatters, "If you can see a path to get there, then for the betterment of mankind, you need to pursue it."

Article IV, section III of the U.S. Constitution states

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.

Preston apparently thinks that West Virginia paved the way to get around the requirement that the California Legislature sign off on his new state. West Virginia's breakaway was approved without the consent of Virginia's legislature, since the rebel state had voted to secede in 1861.

Preston told the Journal that he will petition Congress for statehood, arguing that California's Democratic government is "a one-party communist state, and technically, they have seceded from the Union already."

Jason Mazzone, a constitutional law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said, "It seems far-fetched. But we live in uncertain times. So if you've got the right people in Congress — and I don't think we do have the right people in Congress — you could do it."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

How One Texas Neighborhood Seceded From The Democrat-Run City Hall Ruining Their Lives

The Lost Creek neighborhood in Austin, Texas, is charting a way for communities to band together and break up with abusive city governments.