Kalifornia Is Closer To Secession

Posted by  $  allosaur 1 month, 3 weeks ago to Politics
137 comments | Share | Flag

And all because The Evil Hag got beat by The Perpetual Bad Hair Day. Sheesh!
I suppose if Bolsheviki Bernie wins next time Kalifornia would clamor to rejoin the Union.
Whoa! New thought. Without Kalifornia, I doubt Bernie would have any hope of winning at all. Yeah, don't go away mad, Kalifornia! Just go away! Buh-bye! Buh-bye!
In the article (sorry for the yucky ads), CalExit (whose obviously coo-coo founder has emigrated to Russia)~harrumph!~KalExit spokesman Marcus Ruiz Evans (psst, he's still here) said, speaking of Bad Hair, "So what kind of people elect a man like that? The answer: not Kalifornians."
Yep, supporters of the so obviously corrupt Evil Hag~even after Bernie got weaseled out of the Jackass Party contest.
Evans believes Kalifornia "as the 5th largest economy in the world, will be just fine on its own."
http://californiapolicycenter.org/can...
Yep, lunatics running the asylum has always worked out.
Me dino believes the krazies of Kalifornia will all sink like a stone without the Big One shaking it down.
Plenty of looters and moochers will be taking care of that.
SOURCE URL: http://www.westernjournalism.com/california-allows-secession-ballot-initiative-to-proceed/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    Let them pay what they owe before leaving peacefully.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
      I think they are trying to weasel out of that.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        Of course they are.

        10th Amendment. Any power not given to the fedgov is reserved as a power of the state. Secession was never mentioned. As with the civil war, the fedgov has no authority to force a state to participate.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          But with regards to secession, no exit terms were mentioned either. If one is going to assert that the States have the power to secede because of a contractual arrangement with the rest of the States, one must also recognize that there are simply no rules or agreement in place for how to navigate that process. Last time it led to civil war.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 2 weeks ago
            No terms need be mentioned. The 10th Amendment clear states the fedgov can only do what it is expressly permitted to do,in writing, by the States. Each State, acting as independent elements of the Republic, can leave for whatever reason their people desire (CA). If you are referring to the extraction of federal assets from departing States that doesn't really apply to participation.

            The fedgov is so far beyond its mandate that it needs to be severely pruned to fit back in its plant pot.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 2 weeks ago
              Actually, I would argue that the terms are necessary for an orderly exit. Because no such terms exist, neither party has any restrictions upon what may happen in such an event. Secession is completely an extra-Constitutional procedure - meaning that there is no governing process to effect such an act. Without those terms, literally anything can happen. In the case of the original attempts at secession from the Union which led to the Civil War, the Union determined that its very existence was imperiled by such a move, but it wasn't until the Federal garrison at Fort Sumpter was fired upon that hostilities began.

              With regards to the Tenth Amendment, I would point out that it (the Tenth Amendment) only sets up jurisdictional boundaries for which powers are granted to the Federal Government and which ones are reserved for the States to act upon. The problem with your interpretation that a valid law can not nullify itself. If the Tenth Amendment is to be interpreted as reserving the right to secede to the States, it nullifies itself because secession voids the very relationship that gives any and all meaning to the Tenth Amendment in the first place. If one wants to give precedent for secession, one would be on much stronger legal footing to cite the Declaration of Independence itself rather than the Tenth Amendment. Of course that means that one has to come up with a list of justifiable complaints such as the seventeen listed in the Declaration.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by fosterj717 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                Actually, under Federalism, secession was an implied safeguard. The sovereignty of the states was guaranteed. Under the 10th amendment, that was also the case because if it were not expressly covered in the US Constitution, the powers belonged to the states. Simple even though the niceties of everything being spelled out in the law (or a law/guideline), the issues that remain (I.e., Federal bases or institutions) could be negotiated afterwards including clearing of debt, etc.

                As in any contract, the devil is in the details however all can be remedied if the point is pushed. The risk (as always) is that a repeat of the Civil War could ensue if the Constitution is truly considered "dead" and the powers that be in Washington deem it so. If that is the case, then we are all at great risk and Federalism as envisioned by the framers does not exist. Truth be told!
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                  I'm going to nitpick here a bit, though I appreciate your cogent arguments.

                  Under the Articles of Confederation, one can find significant support for the argument that each State was truly sovereign. Under the Constitution, however, some very key elements of sovereignty were specifically ceded to the Federal Government - namely the rights to entertain treaties, set immigration laws, and oversee national defense (though admittedly at that point the defense forces still primarily relied on State militias). The States from the point of ratification of the Constitution were not sovereign at all, but subordinate to the Federal Government. They entered into a contract by virtue of signing the Constitution that was not only a contract between a State and other States, but between a State and the newly-created Federal Government which was being expressly delegated key powers only exercised by sovereign nation-states. That the Federal Government was to factor prominently and hold authoritative power over the States was specifically laid out in the Supremacy Clause.

                  Given that these key provisions critical to actual sovereignty were express provisions of the Constitution, they would have been exempt from any claim of exercise by a State referring to the Tenth Amendment under any reasonable interpretation. Yet without these powers, one can not truly be called sovereign. Thus I find the argument that the Tenth Amendment reserves the power of secession to be unconvincing. To me, the far more convincing argument lies in the Declaration of Independence itself when it states in the first paragraph:

                  When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

                  "As in any contract, the devil is in the details however all can be remedied if the point is pushed."

                  Precisely. It will heavily depend on whether or not both sides really want to negotiate a deal and whether or not the one party is going to recognize the independent will of the other. Those were certainly crucial elements in the evolution of the Civil War precisely because they are not defined explicitly in the Constitution.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by fosterj717 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                    That was not nitpicking at all but rather an eloquent encapsulation of the framers intent on both documents. The Declaration of Independence does cover most of the issues surrounding this post.

                    In closing, thank you for taking the time to effectively frame your arguments and help clarify the issue. It is appreciated!
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rainman0720 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    When the people in Kalifornia realize that they would need to work out their own currency, negotiate trade agreements with the Unites States government, they'll realize what a hair-brained idea it really is. The first trade agreement will, out of necessity, be negotiated with the state of Nevada. After all, they can't expect water from Lake Mead to be diverted into a foreign country without a trade agreement, can they?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by fosterj717 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      As for working out their own currency, that would be a benefit to them. The problems that we (in all 50 states) have is that the Federal Reserve (neither Federal, nor a real Reserve) prints our "Fiat" money with little is anything behind it. Kalifornia (sic) would be able to determine their own currency and what would be its underpinnings as far as value goes. That would be a blessing because it would put a natural check and balance on the printing of more "worthless" money because they would now need to trade with the world based upon their own assets.

      This would be a positive thing (some that the Federal government should start doing as well). The idea might not be as hair-brained as one might think. Besides that action could also spawn a movement for secession within the state itself for those regions that may be more conservative or more willing to cast their lot with the US as opposed to going it on their own. Free will! That will determine what transpires there. As for the rest of the country, there are so many states that would love to see "Kalifornia" leave and become a burden onto themselves as opposed to pushing politics on the rest of us! For what its worth!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Flootus5 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      Excellent point on the water. Their only recourse would be seawater desalinization. But that would require industrial entrepreneurism, something their majority eschews. Silicon Valley perhaps aside.

      Does the San Francisco Mint still exist? If not, the Carson City, NV mint still does. They would have to contract for real coinage. But again, the majority are too misinformed to understand real coinage.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    CA should stay while the "red" states leave.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
      LOL! The South shall rise again!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Suzanne43 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        My husband has been waiting for that to happen all of is life. He believes the old joke, "The War Between the States was called off because of darkness."
        As much as I would love to see Kalifornia secede, they never will because the Democrat party needs its electoral votes.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
          Yeah, I have to agree that the elite of the democommies would not allow that.
          My Bama night clubbing days are over for the old dino, but I can recall many a time when someone with a microphone ends a sentence by proclaiming "~and the south shall rise again!" and everybody yells "Yay!"
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        From Florida to Idaho.;^)
        US military would be hard pressed to find recruits.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          Actually, most Active Military members vote Republican - not Democrat. It was one of the reasons during Obama's re-election campaign he tried to get overseas votes delayed and then thrown out. He was blocked in these efforts by Republicans and the Courts.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 2 weeks ago
            "most Active Military members vote Republican - not Democrat."
            The data MikeMarotta posted from the Hoover Institution says it's 28.8% Democrat, 25.5% Republican, and 36% independent. When they offered "R/D leaning" options, it was 36.4% Democrat, 37.7% Republican, 22.9% independent, and 3.0% other.

            I do not think they asked the independents if they usually vote Democrat or Republican.

            If that data is right, people in the military do not overwhelmingly support one party or the other.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 2 weeks ago
              Thanks for the info. The data I have must be outdated. It was decidedly one-sided. But then I seem to recall that the military's recruitment in recent years has taken its hits and that many who started reaching the upper ranks decided to retire instead. I don't think there is any question, however, which of the two leading parties is more critical of our men and women in the Armed Forces.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -1
                Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                "which of the two leading parties is more critical of our men and women in the Armed Forces."
                I don't see either party or any mainstream politicians even remotely critical of people serving in the Armed Forces. I have seen nothing remotely like that in my life.

                The old saying was Republicans want to fund the military but not use it, and Democrats want to use the military but not fund it. If that were still true, that would point to Republicans being more popular with the military because I imagine they like funding and don't like war. That saying seems no longer true after President Bush attacked Iraq and began using drones to attack suspects who would be difficult to arrest. President Obama continued the policy and increased it.

                Now it seems like both parties say they want to fund the military but only for defense and not to get into wars. But both parties actually do get us into wars and use the military to attack hard-to-capture suspects.

                President Obama said it outright in response to some foreign development, I think it was the Syrian Civil War, that part of "American Exceptionalism" is the US is the only country able to project power around the globe, so US need to get involved militarily. It was an odd use of American Exceptionalism, which to me means something completely different.

                I'm sure if you ask the parties they'll say they are light-years apart on this, but I do not see it one bit.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                  Then you haven't paid any attention to either President Obama or Hillary Clinton - both of which were openly critical of the military. President Obama intentionally neglected and hamstrung the military in theatre and undermined their effective abilities in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Hillary Clinton was frequently caught swearing at the military officers assigned to her protection details as Secretary of State. I could also go on about John Kerry's derogatory comments about members of the military intentionally mutilating Muslims in Iraq when nothing of the kind was ever reported.

                  PS - President Obama specifically denied the notion of "American Exceptionalism" - especially while on his Apology Tour immediately following his first election. In fact, he railed about "military imperialism" as he saw it as exercised by both the US and Britain in his book Dreams of My Father.

                  One last note: I am currently reading Winston Churchill's six-volume history of the Second World War. What is interesting is that in the first book he goes into great detail about the groundwork laid for it since the end of the First World War in which he very squarely criticized all three major parties in his government - including his own Conservative Party - for being willing to disarm "to further peace" while allowing hostile regimes to build their forces and abrogate their treaty agreements in a move of appeasement. This has been one of the ongoing platforms of Democratic policy since at least the Vietnam War. Obama's appeasement policy towards Islam resulted in the formation and growth of ISIS and the resulting destabilization in the Middle East. As time goes on, I would put good money on Obama being the next Neville Chamberlain, and it will be his appeasement of Russia that will be his legacy.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                    I do not believe any of that, except for Obama condemning imperialism, which I condemn too. I think the rest of that is how the parties say they're light-years apart while both executing the bi-partisan consensus. Even if it were true, much of it is not about the initial topic of parties being "critical" of the "men and women" who serve. This is moot though because I categorically reject all of it except for the part that says President Obama has at times been critical of imperialism. I don't think you can have an appeasement policy toward a religion. I think the expansion of NATO was the opposite of appeasement. I don't think President Obama or President Trump secretly supported Russia.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by fosterj717 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      Unfortunately for California, it is they who are out of control and without rationality therefore, also out of step with the rest of the country.

      California and the Northeastern states all subscribe to the same irrational politics (see by their various rankings, especially in negative areas). There are far more "Red" states if you will who still believe in the US Constitution and are willing to work within its framework. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of California (and some of the NE "blue" states). Therefore, since California is the one that is talking about secession, then so be it and good luck to them!

      So, as to your "CA should stay while the "red" states leave" is probably less in the card then is CA cutting and running. Truth be told!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        Then DC should go with CA, or the tree of liberty will continue to wither and die.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
          The failed repeal of Obamacare makes it look like there is no way to drain the swamp.
          Don't go away mad, swamp. Just go away.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by fosterj717 1 month, 2 weeks ago
            I for one wouldn't give up on repealing the Obama care monstrosity! Keep after the clowns (like McCain et al) and don't give them a moment of peace until that thing is gone! Now is not the time for half measures that the Establishment wants but rather there is an over arching need to repeal it and let the chips fall where they may. give a year or two to do this so that a suitable approach (private sector) can be worked out.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
              Don't think Trump has given up but it seems all the air has blown out of the balloon for now.
              Maybe someone will blow it back up again.
              Don't think the clowns really care as long as insurance companies donate big money toward their reelection.
              The problem rests with sleepy misled sheeple who cast votes.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  DrZarkov99 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    The constitution does address secession, by stating that any state wishing to depart the union may do so WITH THE CONSENT OF ALL THE OTHER STATES. That was a possibility when there were only a few states, but I seriously doubt that California could get agreement for secession from the other 49. On the other hand, this does keep many idiots busy with their fantasy, and distracts them from other problems they could cause.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      Amendment X

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

      Each state as an independent entity has the authority to act on in its own, its people's, best interests. Because the Constitution doesn't grant such power to the fedgov it remains a power of each State, and each States people. Permission to depart is not needed except by the people of a State.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  DrZarkov99 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        The SCOTUS might disagree with you, since it ruled against Texas in White vs Texas, stating Texas was in an "indissoluable union" with the other states. It also stated in that ruling that only by revolution or the consent of the other states could the bonds of union be dissolved.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 2 weeks ago
          I find it odd that an appointed arm off the fedgov would have to provide permission/valudation for a state to leave a contract the States themselves wrote. While it doesn't surprise me to see SCOTUS determining constitutionality , for it was never its intened role, it is again disappointing to see another way the states have been enslaved by the beast they created.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by fosterj717 1 month, 2 weeks ago
            SCOTUS has been an "activist" court for years and has far exceeded its charter (which is to interpret the law and not to provide defacto legislation).

            Since the court has been "Extra Constitutional" for years, one could expect such a ruling. However, with that being said, if the court were to get back to its charter by providing rulings base upon "Original" intent, there would be far fewer bad outcomes under the color of law than we have now. We would also not be discussing the subversion of the intent of the Contstitution.

            It seems that we always get ourselves into trouble when SCOTUS starts writing law instead of interpreting it. The problems crop up down the road whereas SJs actually contradict their own rulings on many occasions, especially when ruling on the "Bill of Rights" or the first 10 Amendments. It would be entertaining seeing this phenomenon if it didn't have such dire consequences on our lives. All many of these rulings do is create job security for lawyers!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  DrZarkov99 1 month, 2 weeks ago
            Actually, if you look at the details of the White vs Texas ruling, it's not about constitutionality but a state's fiscal responsibility under contract law. By the same token, California's responsibility to other states would be the biggest impediment to secession. Water and power contracts were undertaken with the help of federal monies, and are long term (a decade or more to fix the price), so the price tag is billions of dollars. Contract law among the states takes precedence over any arbitrary decision by the state's residents.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  jimslag 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    The thing is, if they leave, we better close the border to Kali as there will be a mass exodus as soon as they run out of money to support the looters and moochers. Besides that, the crime rate in Kali has gone up due to the ridiculous Prop 47, so we don't want all these criminals preying on the good folks in Oregon, Idaho, Nevada and Arizona. Kalifornicators already ruined Colorado and we don't want the rest of the country to go that way.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Dobrien 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    I would love to say goodbye to Pelosi and Waters and the rest of the libretards. I have heard that if they seceded the state would revert to Mexico.
    Buenos noches .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by rainman0720 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      Need to add Brown, Waters, and Boxer to your list.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Dobrien 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        Yes I had Waters and Boxer is an idiot. Brown has no positive attributes but he is similar to our Gov Dayton (both are fools).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
          Me dino thought Dobrien may be talking about his governor again. I looked him up.
          First thing I found was Gov Dayton having similar symptoms with the Evil Hag.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKcSp...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Dobrien 1 month, 2 weeks ago
            The New York Observer's lengthy exposé on the Wilf family doesn't paint a flattering picture of Zygi and company. But equally if not more unflattering is the report's portrayal of Mark Dayton, who comes across as a naive, overmatched politician who was played like a fiddle during the Vikings' stadium push.
            The Observer quotes "a source close to the governor" as saying, "Look, who do you think wins when a N.J. real estate mogul negotiates with a Midwestern governor?" And the passages about Dayton don't get any more positive from there.
            Governor Dayton is an heir from the family that started Target. A recovering alcoholic whose erratic behavior earned him an article in Time titled "The Blunderer" and a spot on the magazine's Five Worst Senators list, Dayton is an enigmatic figure in the Wilf story.
            One person who knows the governor well and was a bit behind him at the elite Blake School says that the governor's whole life has been a mission to prove he's not the upper-crust wuss people assume him to be from his breeding and manner. Indeed, even Governor Dayton's official bio page is peppered with exclamation points and Uncle Rico style nostalgia for the days of hockey glory and teaching in the New York City public schools.
            "You've got this guy who was a star athlete--best senior goalie in a hockey-mad state. But his behavior in the Senate was so bizarre ..."--Dayton once shut his office citing a vague "terrorist threat" and gave himself an F for his undistinguished single term in Washington--"that he wanted to come home and fix this image of himself as an ineffective weirdo."
            According to one Minneapolis businessman who knows Governor Dayton personally and is close to the governor's ex-wife (Alida Rockefeller, the youngest daughter of John D. Rockefeller) and their sons, Eric and Andrew, who operate a popular restaurant in the city and a men's boutique: "Dayton is a swell guy, but he's just awkward in his own skin and never really thought he'd be governor. Now everyone's mad at him, because he's raised taxes, and he wants to be loved so he's full-bore on this stadium. He doesn't want to be known as the governor who lost the Vikings to L.A."
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    I think all states should pursue a "partial secession" with autonomy and weaker central gov't modeled from a radical document call the US Constitution.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
      I can think of 20 trillion reasons why that won't fly.
      http://www.usdebtclock.org/
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        I didn't realize there were that many Democrats in state government, dino.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
          Now I'm thinking of 20 trillion reasons that has become the invasive glue that binds We The People to enslave us altogether.
          The Big Brother elites of both parties can't afford uppity states who want even a partial independence of any kind.
          Resistance is futile against the Borg. Total control is required. Or else.
          You think there's too many RINOs now? Just watch honorable GOP statesmen turn into craven chicken RINOs when push becomes shove.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 3 weeks ago
            I have no respect for any pols in DC regardless of party. State pols haven't impressed me much with their understanding of the constitution, free markets, or individual liberty. Lots of slogans. Not much fight.

            "It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
            - Samuel Adams
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
              I recall Ayn Rand speaking through John Galt that the only business the federal government has is protecting us from enemies on the outside and crooks on the inside.
              But no-oh! We had to Endowment For The Arts, Planned Parenthood, food stamps, climate change funding, welfare and countless etcs provide us and our children with this reap what you unnecessary gargantuan load of BS~
              http://www.usdebtclock.org/
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    Waste them all! Too many Kali plates on cars(not rentals) in Northern Az. Must stem the flow of Kali refugee's. Besides, they don't know how to drive here they're a menace to to the State of Gun! Now,if I can find instructions on building a EMP generator projector I would knock out the Kali progressive cars.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    Adios, Kalifornia! Support all those illegals on your own dime. Forget all those government bailouts for your companies and green cams. NO more job for Pelosi or Maxine, no jet travel, no special interest money form taxpayers of the real USA! Want to sell to theUSA, watch for tariffs. No Medicaid. No military protection. Goodbye military base revenue. Got a natural disaster, sorry, your problem. Maybe the UN will come in and take you over, since you liberals love to be controlled. North Korea missile reaches you, too bad.
    Are these folks really this dumb, tehy can't reason. I hope so.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
      Considering those who Kalifornians elect, such as Moonbeam, Nutty Nancy and Mad Max, the majority probably are that dumb.
      Don't think they are smart enough to really pull off that ultimate act of stupidity, though.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Eyecu2 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    The whole time the giant waste of oxygen Obama was President, Texans talked about secession and nothing ever came of it. Lets all hope and pray that California has enough stupidity to actually follow through with this notion. With the huge number of electoral votes that they carry out of the equation the Left may never carry another election.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Susanne 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    The Nut and Jeff story...

    Secession always looks good to those who put their own terms, rather than reality's terms, on it... Look at the whole State of Jefferson movement (in Northern California, BTW)... It's pie in the sky to think they can survive, somehow, surrounded by blue states and with not much other than federal support (at LEAST until they rebuild some kind of infrastructure, which may take years if not decades) , but the reality is this part of the state, while red as cherries, is rife with unemployment, no industry since the 1960's (or maybe 70's, certainly not now), and nothing but political rhetoric and a sketchy economic plan to make it work.

    California is in much the same boat, but for different reasons - the Calisecessionists think somehow the magical dotgov will pay their way (even without the dotgov), they think they can tax an already hyper-overtaxed populous and keep milking that puppy dry, somehow businesses will flock TO the new People's Republic of Nuts, eager to pay higher taxes (yeah, right)...

    Combining this west coast disaster, if the PRC secedes, the Jeffersonians swear they will secede from the Brownian/Newsomian Kingdom of Nuts to become a state again... Of course, the one resource they have in abundance - water - is controlled by the US Gov, who can make a trade deal with the Nation of Nut, and still sell out the water to them. Timber is so poorly managed that we have entire bare sections of land that are overgrown in Manzanita (which, IIRC, isn't used for much except bird perches and forest fire fuel...)

    No one involved in any of this has the least basis in reality, and so far, all are living in a fantasy world where their wishes come true, blind to the fact that it takes work to make things work... it doesn't magically appear like manna from the sky.

    And no one - not the techies who want to secede, to the Tea-party conservatives in Jeff, can explain how they plan on making it work, instead appealing to mob acceptance - rather than reality. And living in the Kingdom of Nut, and the State of Jeff, we're rightly worried that whatever happens, we're on the brown end of the otherwise clean stick...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
      I'm now reminded when I was an underpaid small town with a rural county inclued newspaper reporter during the 70s in Alabama.
      It was especially during President Jimmy Carter's lefty reign of ineptitude did I hear several conservatives say they were going to move to Australia.
      They never went.
      They wouldn't like it now with that gun ban anyway.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by smichael9 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    Hmmmm.....Since much of California's infrastructure was funded by the US Government, would it be possible to make them pay it back it when they take it with them as they leave? Do they realize how much actual support they receive from the rest of the USA? If they become a new country, can we establish tariffs for all goods going into and out of their country?

    I'm just curious.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
      Methinks they A is K moocher mentality think they can wriggle out of it by utilizing some kinda smoke and mirrors from which magic bunnies and Mad Hatters appear.
      I know what I wrote looks crazy but anything Kalifornia is not about any sort of sanity.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    This has actually been going on for a while in various forms, I think the state government really wants the ability to print it's own money.

    Jerry Brown runs around the globe negotiating his own trade and climate deals. Single Payer was working it's way through until they hit the $400 billion cost estimate for the first year. Their expansion of Medicaid to 14 million people that don't pay a penny for it, it seems, is quite expensive.

    We also have the State of Jefferson, much better organized, also working to get on the next ballot - that would split the state with the dividing line just north of Sacramento (and I think I would be in that count - I'm in Placer County, not sure where the boundary is).

    The new state, Jefferson, would be very pro-gun, pro-liberty, and pro-patriots. For an idea, California is only 1% veteran, but almost 9% here in Placer. Definitely re-open elk hunting too ;)

    I thought the Jeffersonians had zero chance, but if Calexit gets more popular, this would easily pass.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  jimslag 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    On another note, we should let them go but only if they take New York and Illinois with them. That way they can all fail together.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    South Carolina tried that and we ended up with the war of northern aggression. Lets hope California has more luck...they will end up like Puerto Rico though!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      If California wants to try it, they'll destroy themselves far faster than any war. They currently (pun intended) buy the majority of their power from other Western States. If they secede, those States can then drive up the prices of electricity and hasten their economic collapse.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
      Methinks more like Cuba if they can actually wannabe Commie pull their nonsense off.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by evlwhtguy 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        Puerto Rico is the first step to getting to Cuba, Right now I believe that California is a net positive in tax revenue to the federal government....but if they Secede, many corporations will flee them as has happened with Puerto Rico as the government craziness escalated. Then they got to the Venezuela stage...then Cuba.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
          That strikes old dino as a viable prediction.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by evlwhtguy 1 month, 3 weeks ago
            All you got to do is read this little book called Atlas Shrugged...you may have heard of it!.....It is actually amazing how predictable this whole farce can be. I used to grouse at old farts that made dire predictions like this, but it doesn't matter what the age or how "Modern" we become, people are still people and things will roll out in a predictable manner when you go down certain well worn paths.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
              Little book? LOL! Galt's radio address alone coulda fit into a little book.
              People are people indeed~even if they were still using typewriters and smoking up a storm in public places like restaurants.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    If I read the comments without knowing anything about the US or California, I would have everything backwards. It sounds like CA is backwater that receives more federal monies than it pays in taxes. Their thinking "CA would be fine on its own" is absurd, I would think, because the center of the country creates the FANG-type companies that drive the modern economy, and the CA economy is heavily dependent on federal spending and transfer payments.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Joseph23006 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    I would say, "Good riddance!" But this is not a unilateral decision. The other states must agree to it under some very strict terms. California has tried to hold the rest of the states hostage to some of their idiotic regulations. Because Los Angeles had their pollution problem California gave an ultimatum on auto emissions. They didn't really work but the other 49 states suffered. Let's not make them go but have them abide by what is good for the whole, watch movies made in other states and foreign countries, drink non-California wines (some are quite better), visit beaches in other states, return the Colorado River to its original configuration, that water doesn't really belong to them, let them find their own.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
      My sister-in-law's step sister brought bottles of some local red Texas wine during a Thanksgiving in Nashville two tears ago.
      Best stuff I ever tasted. Can't recall the name of it but it's not sold in here Alabama or up in Tennessee anyway.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        "it's not sold in here Alabama or up in Tennessee anyway"
        Local/State distributor regulations probably restricting competition and innovation.
        I was told that when Trader Joes opens in a new state, they must make their 2 buck chuck wine available to all via local distributors because of local/state laws on alcohol distribution protecting the interests of "licensed" distributors.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo