quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
You know me. I've long argued for the idea of letting them secede and then immediately invading.

ya, if we could use some of those bombs that just reduce the population but leave the infrastructure in place...

You've gotta give them at least one shot at returning to civilization. Or moving to another country, as the case may be.

So long as that shot has a 60 minutes expiration, I'm good with it.

That seems reasonable.

quote:

does Mexico have nukes?

Eat at a random taco truck and decide for yourself.

The problem with the CalExit plan is they presume that everyone in every county wants to exit and be apart of the grand left coast plan.

I'd suspect that if California voted to exit, that the central valley much of Orange and San Diego up to Oregon/Nevada would request to be a separate state than the Liberal Enclaves of San Fangeles area.

Interesting enough the liberal areas will have massive wealth and commerce, jobs, illegals, crime, taxes, no guns and be happy.

The central valley will turn off the fresh water spigots unless paid massive amounts of mega liberal money, they will use it to irrigate farm lands, and sell off the hydro electric at massive rates.

LibCal will have no power generation, no fresh water resources, and a border wall keeping them out of the central state New California which will have shall issue or constitutional carry all the food the liberals need and water...

Works for me...

quote:

The Liberal Enclaves of San Fangeles

When it becomes a separate state I think you have given it it's new name!

A lot more counties voted Blue in the last election than are included in that green section.

flashguy

Later, dudes...

Movement grows to allow sections of states to break away

By Steve Kurtz | Fox News

New secession movements in CA, and elsewhere in America, are getting genuine attention from political pundits. (newcaliforniastate.com)

******************

When Donald Trump was elected, a lot of people in California signed a petition supporting the state’s secession from the U.S. It was hard to take the movement seriously—didn’t we fight a war over this?

But there is another secession movement in California, and elsewhere in America, that is getting genuine attention from political pundits. While it may be unlikely to succeed, the idea of intra-state secession—a section of a state splitting off to form its own state—has been growing in popularity. And there’s even a Constitutional procedure for doing it.

In recent decades, the political differences between rural areas and metropolitan areas seem to have become more severe. This has caused political splits in certain states, where, often, those rural areas, with lower populations, feel stifled by their city brethren.

As Joel Kotkin, a fellow at Chapman University in Orange, Calif. and author of The Human City: Urbanism ForThe Rest Of Us, tells Fox News, “The worst thing in the world to be is the red part of a blue state.”

He looks at his home state of California and sees numerous clashes between the coastal cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles, and the more conservative counties in the interior. This has led to the New California Movement, already organized in 35 counties, seeking to create two states where there was one. Other plans have California splitting into three states, or even six. It should be noted that these new states would still be bigger than many on the East Coast, and more populous than many in the West.

Kotkin feels this movement is driven by policies like the $15 minimum wage, “which makes sense in San Francisco, but doesn’t make sense in Fresno.” He adds those running California are “fundamentally authoritarian” with “not a lot of tolerance for any kind of economic or political diversity.” As he puts it, their attitude is “’We know the truth, we know what’s right, and it has to apply to everyone.”

Kotkin further notes it’s not just California where this blue versus red battle is brewing, but up the West Coast, where eastern Oregon battles against the policies of Portland, and eastern Washington against Seattle. For that matter, there’s Chicago against downstate Illinois, and New York City versus upstate New York. And the policy divisions are not just economic, but often traditional versus progressive politics regarding issues such as marijuana, gun control and the environment.

This is why there’s a movement in New York for upstate to split from downstate. As Republican state senator Joseph Robach puts it, “We’re completely overwhelmed...by the policies of New York City.” In 2009 and 2011 he introduced bills to hold a referendum on secession. And in 2015 there was a rally in favor of carving out a new state, supported by more than a dozen groups frustrated by the policies of Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo.

All this secession talk has captured the notice of University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds, who recently put out a new paper, “Splitsylvania: State Secession and What to Do About It.”

He notes that Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution allows for new states to be admitted into the union, though no new state can be formed within an old state without the consent of the state legislature as well as Congress. That’s a pretty high hurdle. But, as Reynolds told Fox News, not insurmountable.

It’s been done before, but long ago. For example, Vermont split from New York in 1791, Maine split from Massachusetts in 1820, and West Virginia split from Virginia during the Civil War in 1863. There haven’t been any states formed by secession in modern U.S. history.

What’s more, Americans seem to have gotten used to the idea of 50 states, with Hawaii the last admitted to the Union in 1959. As Reynolds points out, “for most of the country’s history we added a new state every couple of decades...now we act as if 50 is set in stone. There’s a plausible argument that we would be better off with more states. It would be more representative.”

While it would seem that state leaders wouldn’t want to give up power, Reynolds offers a scenario where politicians might greet the formation of a new entity. “If you’re a California politician, you spend a lot of time trying to fight your way to the top. And the trouble is it’s a really big state—there are a lot of other people trying to fight their way to the top...[If the state splits, there’s] a smaller pond, but you’re a big fish.”

More important than forming new states, however, Reynolds feels we should address the disputes that make citizens support secession. Part of the problem, he believes, goes back to the Supreme Court case “Reynolds v. Sims” (1964), which declared state legislatures (as opposed to the U.S. Senate) have to be apportioned according to population, not geographical area. As Reynolds explains, “under the old system, rural areas got more representation, and under the new system they got much less.” This has helped lead to the present-day situation where rural areas feel underserved.
__________________________

Reynolds hopes there can be less dramatic solutions than secession, such as Congressional statutes (or in some cases executive orders) to ease the pressure. Reynolds thinks they have the Constitutional authority to remedy the situation, particularly under the Guarantee Clause, which states “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”

Reynolds points to civil rights laws, passed to protect unfairly treated minorities, as a model for how Congress might take action. He notes “most federal laws...are written to leave states the power to make stricter regulations, but if it seems like the burden...is falling disproportionately on a minority in a state that has no real political power...then I think it’s fair for the federal government to step in and protect them.” To Reynolds, this could mean laws limiting how far states can go regarding “the environment, firearms, wages and...things that people in rural areas are unhappy about.”

This may seem like extreme intervention to some, but it’s a lot less extreme than secession.

As Reynolds puts it, “when you have people talking about wanting to split from their state, and form a new one, there’s obviously some significant unhappiness, and if we can do things that are relatively low cost...to remedy it, I think probably we should. At least we should think about it.”
__________________________

Steve Kurtz is a producer for the Fox News Channel, and author of "Steve’s America (the perfect gift for people named Steve)".

This message has been edited. Last edited by: kkina,

Democrats have made California one of the poorest states in the nation

They used to call California "The Golden State." That was before the modern Democratic Party got a hold of it.

This, from Matt Margolis writing at PJ Media:

Despite all the wealth in the state and the Democrat control of state government, California actually ranks as the poorest state in the country after costs of living are factored in. A whopping 19 percent of Californians live below the poverty line. While California represents just 12 percent of the nation's population, Californians represent a third of all Americans on welfare. The average monthly cost of rent in the state is 43 percent higher than the national average. Nearly a third of Californians spend more than half of their earnings on housing. The situation is made worse by skyrocketing energy costs. "Residents who can afford rent or a mortgage are on the hook for electricity rates burdened by green initiatives and regulation that grew 500 percent faster than the national average from 2011 to 2017."

Some of these stats are mind-boggling.

The Hill:

California renters pay an average of $1,440 per month, much higher than the national average of $1,010 per month. In 2015, more than 40 percent of Californians spent over 30 percent of their income on housing. Today, 29 percent of them spend over half their earnings on housing. Median home values, at $529,000, are more than double the national median of $239,800. Residents who can afford rent or a mortgage are on the hook for electricity rates burdened by green initiatives and regulation that grew 500 percent faster than the national average from 2011 to 2017.

"Not In My Backyard" development and construction restrictions mean that California cities are much more expensive for the poor, with Los Angeles having the highest proportion of income going towards rent in the nation. The state and its cities use environmental and zoning laws to restrict housing, which often disallows large scale development of apartments. The result? Less access for middle class residents.

"California society represents a modern feudal system of robber barons and the poor." Democrats in the state have set about to deliberately sabotage the economy by placing non-economic concerns over growth. Not surprisingly, the middle class is deserting the state – a gold rush in reverse.

How did it happen?

In many ways, California has long been an example for the rest of the nation. But the middle class conservatism that propelled national figures like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan is gone. It has been replaced with virtue signaling and policies by the wealthy that hurt struggling families. Both sides of the coin, from technology executives to families unable to pay rent, vote for Democrats that only make the problem worse.

Being a liberal in California is now a matter of survival. Government largesse is necessary to live even reasonably comfortably. Government goodies have replaced the work ethic and a desire to better oneself by one's own devices.

As long as the super-rich continue to prop up the system, California will muddle through. Eventually, even the tech billionaires will be forced out, and then the apocalypse.

Perhaps they could turn Los Angeles into a prison, as John Carpenter did in Escape from L.A. It just might be an improvement.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.co...n.html#ixzz5V9shC4m4

^^^^
Mention any of this to a liberal, and invariably they will try to turn the discussion to "California is in the top 10 economies in the world!".

Theoretically, they should be swimming in cash, but have somehow managed to drive the state into the toilet.

Through my work, I'm acquainted with several people who live in the Bay Area that fit the above, one in particular in Frisco earns a little over $100k and he pays close to $45,000 per year for a one bedroom apt. and a parking space for his 7 year old Jetta. That is way more than half of his take home pay. He also tends to eat out most of his meals, leaving nothing for savings or retirement, complaining he needs to earn 50% more.

Pretty sad life, if you ask me.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
Through my work, I'm acquainted with several people who live in the Bay Area that fit the above, one in particular in Frisco earns a little over $100k and he pays close to $45,000 per year for a one bedroom apt. and a parking space for his 7 year old Jetta. That is way more than half of his take home pay. He also tends to eat out most of his meals, leaving nothing for savings or retirement, complaining he needs to earn 50% more.

Pretty sad life, if you ask me.

It is sad that a person making six figures must live like a near-pauper. The more Left the government, the smaller the middle class. In places like SF, I imagine a middle class is almost non-existent.



.

quote:

This has led to the New California Movement, already organized in 35 counties

Coastal access? Check.

Control of the rivers feeding into "old" California? Check.

Complete control of the Mexican border? Check.

I'm interested. I wonder, though - would they need a new north-south stretch of highway along the foothills of the Sierras in order to get from Sacramento to Bakersfield without having to go through the "old" part?

Slice it in half horizontally above Santa Cruz. Trade the southern part to Mexico as part of the peninsula - it used to be theirs anyway, make northern Mexico part of Texas in the trade. Northern Californians can stay or migrate south, southern Californians become Mexican citizens, unless Texas decides to let them in on a case-by-case basis. With the exception of San Francisco, whose entire population will need to apply for citizenship again. Northern Mexicans will be resident aliens until citizenship and allegiance to Texas is demonstrated, or head south, or move to Southern Mexifornia. Problem solved.

The the SF bay area, the expense issues are not all government caused. The booming tech industry has cased and employment boom, which has caused huge demand for housing in a limited area. The ricochets through the rest of the real estate economy, driving up commercial rents, which pushes up retail prices (although this has somewhat been offset by the rise of internet retail.)

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
Through my work, I'm acquainted with several people who live in the Bay Area that fit the above, one in particular in Frisco earns a little over $100k and he pays close to $45,000 per year for a one bedroom apt. and a parking space for his 7 year old Jetta. That is way more than half of his take home pay. He also tends to eat out most of his meals, leaving nothing for savings or retirement, complaining he needs to earn 50% more.

Pretty sad life, if you ask me.

It is sad that a person making six figures must live like a near-pauper. The more Left the government, the smaller the middle class. In places like SF, I imagine a middle class is almost non-existent.



.

quote:

Hide Post
Trade the southern part to Mexico as part of the peninsula

Why? How does that benefit the US?

California shouldn't let the door hit them in the ass on the way out. Good Riddance to them.....And take all the democrats with you. Good luck with your Calexit, that will be the best news I heard for decades.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

Hide Post
Trade the southern part to Mexico as part of the peninsula

Why? How does that benefit the US?

It gets rid of southern California as part of the United States; the dividing line could be negotiable. Or maybe just carve off the southern coastal cities. Anyway, seems like there's a lot of California that Mexico could have back, and still benefit the rest of the continent. Since we really ought to get something for it, the northern part of Mexico could be part of the deal and I'm sure Texas could find a use for it. A few million acres of worthless desert for half of the communist loonies in the country. Seems fair to me. The problem would be getting Mexico to take them, but we could sweeten it by agreeing to deport every A and B celebrity and deposit all their cash in Mexican banks. We'd have to build the wall higher though, to keep them from coming back. Nothing is insoluble. For our loyal Sig Forum members unfortunately located in the newly-formed Mexifornia, a government buyout at top dollar and relocate them, all expenses paid, on free ranch land in northern Idaho.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
The the SF bay area, the expense issues are not all government caused. The booming tech industry has cased and employment boom, which has caused huge demand for housing in a limited area. The ricochets through the rest of the real estate economy, driving up commercial rents, which pushes up retail prices (although this has somewhat been offset by the rise of internet retail.)

None of that helped that from the 70's-00's, SF govt was locked into a 'we don't want to look like NYC' mindset, thus, residential development over 3-stories was severely curtailed. My sister used to work for Tishman-Speyer, they had stacks and stacks of plans, some of which were green-lit but, backed-up in various city commissions for approval. Special interests were given an audience and a seat at the table in city govt, which only exacerbated the lack of housing growth. When the dot com boom happened, there was a spike but didn't last long enough for secondary effects to be felt, the current tech boom has lasted much longer and exposed this inflexibility and dogmatic mindset of the 'political class' in SF. I moved-out nearly 10-years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

This has led to the New California Movement, already organized in 35 counties

Coastal access? Check.

Control of the rivers feeding into "old" California? Check.

Complete control of the Mexican border? Check.

I'm interested. I wonder, though - would they need a new north-south stretch of highway along the foothills of the Sierras in order to get from Sacramento to Bakersfield without having to go through the "old" part?

Highway 99 has a large portion covered through the heart of the Central Valley. It would need a detour around SAC.