Thread: California's secession: Could Christmas come early for the rest of us?

California's secession: Could Christmas come early for the rest of us?


By Ed Straker

In response to Donald's Trump's election, leftists are pushing a ballot measure in California which would lead to California withdrawing from the United States. As Mark Levin frequently says, "The left never gives up, whether it wins or loses an election!"

"Should California become a free, sovereign, and independent country?"

The question could appear on a statewide ballot in 2018 if a group of secessionists has its way.

Marcus Evans, the vice president of Yes California, filed a proposed ballot measure with the Attorney General's Office on Monday that would appear on the November 2018 gubernatorial ballot.

If voters approve the measure, it would establish a special election in March 2019 to ask voters again if they want California to become an independent country, Yes California wrote in a ballot measure filing.

More than half of the registered voters in the state must participate in the special election and at least 55 percent must vote "yes" for the proposal to move forward, according to information submitted by the group. If voters approve the measure, "the governor shall carry and shepherd an application for the newly independent Republic of California to join the United Nations," they say.

Evans said the group filed the ballot proposal in response to an uptick in support in a deep-blue state following the election of Donald Trump.

You may think, what does it matter? California can't unilaterally decide to withdraw from the Union. But you forget, there are two legal standards: one for conservatives and one for liberals.

Conservatives are prosecuted if they choose to disregard laws or even regulations or court decisions on marriage being redefined to include same-sex couples, letting boys in girls' bathrooms, or voter ID nullification. But liberals are held to a very different standard. They create sanctuary cities in defiance of federal law without consequence. They also legalize narcotics, first timidly for "medical" use, then boldly for "recreational" use, despite prohibitions in federal law, and for decades they have suffered absolutely no penalty for it.

Given that, is it really impossible to see how California could unilaterally withdraw from the United States if liberals decide that it is in their best interest to do so?

And what a gift it would be for the rest of the country! California currently has 55 electoral votes. Candidates need 270 to become president. Without California, Democrats would have to swing states deep in Republican territory. California has 53 congressmen, 39 of whom are liberals (40 if you count Kevin McCarthy). In a House of Representatives with 382 members, can you imagine the difficulty liberals would have getting a majority if they had to climb out of a net deficit of 39 members? That would make the departure of the two Democratic senators merely icing on the cake!

If California were no longer part of America, large clusters of illegal aliens there would not be Americans, either. A larger percentage of the country would speak English as their first language. After barricading the highways, the natural rugged terrain of Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona would help keep Californians out of our country.

As for the few regular Americans who live in California, not much would change. As I've written above, California ignores any federal laws it does not like anyway. The only difference is that through its disassociation with the United States, it would not be able to impose its views on the other 49 states.

What do you think? Would you be sad to lose California? Most of the major population centers – Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, even Orange County – are leftist now. The only relatively conservative part of the state is in parts of the Central Valley, and up north, but even the northern region is filled with tweakers. So what's to lose?




http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...est_of_us.html

It is a little ironic that like the Civil War, this succession spasm is motivated by the need for cheap labor. In the South it was slaves. In California, it is illegal immigrants. California has been reduced to a plantation economy by its submission to migrant labor. But its labor is not slaves shipped involuntarily to its land, but servile, uneducated, feudal labor fleeing overpopulated failed states in South and Central America. It's moral argument is not racial superiority, but the moral inferiority of the laws against illegal immigration.

Unfortunately for the Antebellum Californians, the laws are already in place to dispose of this misery. If they really wanted independence based on this labor, they would have struggled for its legalization instead of sanctioning it outside of the law. Also, since so many illegal immigrants are benefits of federal monies, then how are they going to pay for all these legals outside of the federation? California would be considerably less enthusiastic about illegal immigrants if it had to pay for them all by itself.

Originally Posted by pkskyali

California would be considerably less enthusiastic about illegal immigrants if it had to pay for them all by itself.

Absolutely!! I say let 'em go. Their socialist policies will turn the place into another Venezuela and they'll be begging to come back into the USA.

Illegal aliens are going to leave our nation, not California.