Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Is California to Trump what Texas is to Obama?

Is California to Trump what Texas is to Obama?

Now may be the time for other Americans to unite behind #CalExit!

Recently, there has been one bright spot for me remaining a California resident: The sheer entertainment value offered by the dramatic response of our leading politicians to President-elect Trump.

For example, our state’s representatives are lining up to work actively against our new President. The apparent goal is to make California to Trump what Texas was to Obama.

In the early morning hours after Donald Trump became president-elect of the United States, California Senate leader Kevin de León and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon were on the phone grappling with what comes next.

Trump’s upset victory left the two Democrats reeling. They saw the incoming administration as an existential threat to the progressive work they accomplished in the nation’s most populous state. By midday Wednesday, they released a combative statement vowing to defend those strides.

…Now, the circumstance in which California finds itself recalls that of a perennial rival: Texas playing the role of chief antagonist to President Obama.

That brand of resistance — a barrage of lawsuits seeking to stymie Obama’s priorities, and an elevation of state identity over a national one — may be a model, albeit an imperfect one, for California leaders wondering where the state fits into Trump’s America.

Meanwhile, outgoing U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (quite oblivious to the constitutional sensibilities of our Republic) is introducing a bill to do away with the Electoral College.

A week after her party’s White House loss, the retiring U.S. senator [Barbara Boxer] has introduced a bill that would amend the Constitution in order to abolish the Electoral College. According to a New York Times estimate, Clinton will be ahead in the popular vote by more than 2 million votes and more than 1.5 percentage points. But Trump got 306 in the Electoral College vote while Clinton got 232 — 270 is needed to win.

With Republicans now in control of both congressional houses, it’s unlikely Boxer’s bill will become much more than a political statement.

Finally, while Governor Jerry Brown offered a more conciliatory statement on Trump’s election, he is vowing to fight Trump’s team on climate change policy:

“We will protect the precious rights of our people and continue to confront the existential threat of our time — devastating climate change,” he said.

Brown was sharply critical of Trump during the presidential campaign season on the issue of climate change, taking aim at statements in which the businessman said he’s “not a big believer” in the phenomenon.

In August, Brown vowed to “vanquish” climate change skeptics. “Bring it on,” Brown said at the time. “We’ll have more battles, and more victories.”

This should turn into an epic battle, as Trump just tapped one of the most skeptical climate change skeptics to spearhead his EPA transition team.

One cautionary note for my Legal Insurrection friends: Brown is term-limited out, and the 2018 race for the California’s next governor has already begun. Most of the leading candidates make Brown look like a Churchill-quality statesman.

Perhaps my fellow Americans should organize to expedite #CalExit?

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

if these idiots actually succeeded, #Failifornia would be another Venezuela in <10 years.

we don't make anything, we've killed a major portion of our agriculture. we import gasoline, water and electricity. our ports would empty: who's going to pay import duties twice, once here and once entering the US?

and i don't see the DoD being willing to give up San Diego, Camp Pendleton, Planet Irwin, 29 Stumps, China Lake or Vandengerg, to name a few unique bases.

but if looks likely, i'm outta here.

UnCivilServant | November 21, 2016 at 1:12 pm

There is am important distinction – Texas managed to spite Obama by having its economy boom, California will ontinue to languish in a recession of its own making regardless of what happens elsewhere.

oh yeah, and how are they going to pay for all the federally funded infrastructure that’s here?

no way President Trump is going to let that go for free. these idiots didn’t even wait for weed to be legal to smoke their brains out.

thalesofmiletus | November 21, 2016 at 1:16 pm

The temper-tantrums have been amusing, I’ll give them that.

CalExit can only be viewed as an exercise in accelerationism — it would be great for the USA, but it would cause CA to implode like most communist regimes.

The only long term strategy for California is to stay in the union. There is a huge unfunded liability for pensions and medical care for retirees that could be as high as 500 billion dollars. California will never be able to make good on those promises.
In 20 or 30 years when they run out of pension money, their only chance for salvation will be to use California’s electoral power to extract bailout money from Congress.
As a separate nation, California has no chance to avoid a fiscal train wreck.

    As indeed a good friend of mine who is a retired cop in Detroit. Under democrat control his pension has continually been hit, along with his medical care, that he has actually paid in to (unlike todays non-workers). Strange how all these issues, like voter fraud, all seem to involve democrat strong holds???

    alaskabob in reply to johnny dollar. | November 21, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    I propose a Constitutional amendment that any State requiring Federal (as in all other State) to financially bail them out reverts to a “territory” without representation in Congress directly under the US Constitution (no States’ rights) until they pay back all debts and are solvent.

As a Californian, I hope Trump fights CA the same way Obama fought Texas. We desperately need it since repubs here don’t fight much anymore.

    legacyrepublican in reply to scfanjl. | November 21, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    One of the many reasons I left California and didn’t look back is that the Republicans had the backbone of a kelp plant and the heart for the fight of an ice plant.

Trump should use California as an example State of what NOT to do with climate change catastrophilia.

smalltownoklahoman | November 21, 2016 at 3:17 pm

Well to be honest I would like to see some method of legal secession worked out for the states to take should they wish to leave the union and be their own independent country. I certainly prefer that option anyway to running the risk of a second civil war, especially given the fire power available to modern militaries. Should we actually allow states to secede there are a few requirements I would like made a part of any secession bid.

1. The people of the state must really want to leave.

This is the first and perhaps the most obvious part of it and by people I mean the actual U.S. citizens who reside in the state, non-citizens will not have a legal say in the matter. The legal citizens of the state must vote in favor of secession by at least a 3/4 majority vote. The state legislature must then take up the issue and also cast a majority vote of at least 60% in both houses for the measure to be approved. Should both votes pass by the required majorities then the U.S. Congress must then meet within one year to cast a final vote to decide the matter. This final vote needs only a simple majority of both houses in Congress to pass or deny the measure. Should the U.S. Congress deny to allow the state in it’s bid to secede then that state shall be allowed to ask Congress to vote one more time on the matter within three years. Should Congress vote to deny a second time however the state wishing to secede must wait a minimum of 10 years before starting the whole process over again.

This first step might be a doozy but then you have to consider that a state wishing to leave the union, even one of the smaller and/or less populous ones, is no small matter! It is not a decision that should be reached easily or taken lightly.

2. Should a state be successful in it’s bid to secede from the Union then that state and the U.S. government must work together for a minimum of 20 years to repatriate into the U.S. those citizens of the seceding state who do not wish to remain in the seceding state.

Remember that 3/4ths majority vote of the citizens to be in favor of secession? Well that still leaves a potential 25% of that states populace who might not be very happy about the decision. In some of the larger states that could mean several million unhappy people! This is meant as a means of assuaging those folks by giving them an out should the vote not go in their favor. The 20 years is also a basic recognition of the fact that not everybody can just immediately pack up and move. It also gives each government plenty of time to process those wishing to move.

3. Mutual nonaggression and defense treaties between the seceding state and the U.S. government.

Basic no brainer. This one is just meant to encourage both sides to play nice with one another should the secession be successful. There is however one exception….

4. You want to be your own nation? Fine, you are your own nation!

Should a state be successful in it’s bid for secession it shall enter into agreement via treaty with the U.S. government to not become a part of any other nation upon pain of immediate reconquest and absorption back into the United States. The one and only exception being if the seceding state wishes to join together with a state that has previously seceded and that it shares a border with that state. Should the seceding state desire to join with another already seceded state it must also wait until after the 20 year repatriation period of it’s citizens into the U.S. is over before joining with that state.

This last one is meant to be a check against groups such as La Raza and against foreign governments who might view the issue of state secession as a means to acquire territory and resources from the U.S. without having to actually go to war with us over it. Considering how resource hungry some nations are (China) and our rocky relations with other nations I think this is a step that needs to be included.

So those are some basics I would like to see included as part of any secession effort. If there’s anything else you all would like to see included please free to reply.

    We’d have to build a wall first.

      DanInMN in reply to Old0311. | November 22, 2016 at 12:33 pm

      Don’t forget their share of the debt: CA is 12.3% of the population so their share of the 20 trillion dollar debt is 2.4 trillion dollars. So they are free and clear of the rest of us when they pony that up.

      We can offset that if they return their share of mobile military assets but also pay for the improvements made to non-mobile bases, etc. Give them credit for their share of the nuclear arsenal that they won’t be getting under any circumstances (non-proliferation don’tcha know!)

      This would be more complicated than Brexit, but I think at the end of the day it is better than the alternative. I’m damned sure not willing to send my kid to to fight to keep them in the union if they want to go their own way.

No. California should not simply be allowed to exit.

For at least a decade some Californians have been talking about splitting the state. Generally taking a chunk of California and a chunk of Oregon and forming a new state Jefferson.

So something like that then the blue part can secede. Why should people who want to stay in the US be forced to go into another country?

The California vote count has not yet been completed. They hope to have it done by Dec. 8. The reason for the delay is an overwhelming number of mail-in and provisional ballots.

On election day, a LOT of people showed up ready to vote, only to be told that they had been switched to mail-in voters, so they would be given a provisional ballot. Some of them claim the switch was involuntary, and that no ballot ever arrived by mail.

Anybody interested in driving the California Democratic Party nuts? I submit that the Bernie Sanders supporters might be enlisted in an effort to settle on an auditable system of voter registration and counting. What the Democrats do with their primaries is up to them.

buckeyeminuteman | November 21, 2016 at 3:36 pm

Do they have a Go Fund Me account set up? I’d like to donate to the cause.

Ten days after California left the union, it would become North Korea.

Hmmm.

NYT thinks Clinton is ahead by some 2M in the popular vote.

So, if we subtract the estimated 3M-odd votes by illegals, under the not-unreasonable hypothesis that all fraudulent votes went to the Dems, that leaves Hillary about a million votes down.

Something I stumbled across that seems relevant.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-california-secession-calexit-htmlstory.html

I should not a simple ballot measure petition was submitted last week in Oregon but has been since remove./

One argument that I see the Calexit people use is that California pays more in taxes then it gets from the Feds.

Fine, but if you only count the counties that went to Hillary how does that argument look?

Well, I’d be ok with throwing out all the coastal cities.
No reason to throw the baby out with the bath-water.
Yeah, throw them out. Why wait?
Ok, we have a lot of Military assets tied up there, so in that light, it becomes a bit more complicated.
It would be probably better to at least cut it up into manageable pieces.
There is far too much centralized power ruling over a great and diverse State.

I don’t care if liberal Hollywood and SAN Francisco left, but I would like to keep the Colorado river basin water rights, and the Central California farmland (areas that voted for Trump) as well as the San Diego Naval base & community.

If the secessionists are fine with the USA keeping those, then goodbye and good riddance to them.

I was looking for the authors’s email to explain how stupid it was pretend the current popular vote is what it would have been if the popular vote mattered. Of course, she’s not reachable.

But gosh golly, what a diverse newsroom at CNN…

http://www.cnn.com/specials/politics/politics-our-team

I seriously doubt California lawmakers etc can make their state into what Texas was to Pres Obama with legal challenges as every time TExas made a challange of some sort they had a legal standing. CA can stamp their feet and cry all they want but legal challenges to a Pres. Trump agenda will br MUCH harder compared to Texas challenges to Pres Obamas’ executive overreaches. A President Trump doesn’t have to use his ‘pen and a phone’, congress can pass an actual LAW. The only items President Trump will use his ‘pen and a phone’ on are rolling back the previous administrations overreaches, until Congress enacts a law to cover the reforms.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend