| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
Calexit is a distraction. Like a magician waving his right hand in the air while his left takes our watch. ( or a pickpocket, which is a far more accurate metaphor, here ) There is no way the Clinton/Democrat Socialist party would allow the People's Republic of Kalifornia to leave. They'd never win the Presidency again. No. Way. So, it's temper tantrums, agitation propaganda to undermine the United States, and Trump, and distraction from the crimes I can only assume are being committed as we speak by the politicians involved. Oh, and it gives CNN, etc. talking heads something to talk about with imagined superiority. In short, mock and ignore. No sense in spending any effort or bile. | ||
| Fb1 |
The ramifications from ANY state leaving the Union are great, but particularly so for California. Consider, for example, the federal military facilities there - Vandenberg AFB comes immediately to mind (a space port), and Edwards AFB. If CA exits, who "owns" all the military installations (and tools - fighter jets, for example - and weaponry) that dot the state? Consider the agricultural impact. The San Joaquin Valley is often called the nation's breadbasket. If CA leaves the Union, do the other 49 states still have commercial access to this bounty? Consider the millions of Conservatives living in CA. Same as anywhere else in America, get outside the urban centers and you quickly leave the loons behind and actually find a pretty patriotic bunch of hard-working Conservatives. If CA leaves, can the rest of us still visit our friends and family there? If CA leaves, can our friends and family there still visit US? If you're presently a Conservative in Cali and this thing passes, WTF do you do? Stay? Run? If you stay, are you now (even more so) the enemy? I can't imagine ANY government gladly allowing a state to secede, particularly one with all the resources Cali has. If Cali leaves the Union, it won't do it on anything resembling friendly terms with the rest of us. AND...if Cali leaves, do other states follow suit? California is legendary for setting nationwide precedent in many arenas. Could this be another one? Lincoln didn't allow the South to secede, resulting in the death of 600,000 people in the process, and he's considered (by many) to be a hero for so doing. This initiative, formally launched just six days after the inauguration, has so far adhered to the various legal protocols for such things and has been officially recognized and publicized by the California Secy of State (one wonders on which side of this issue Mr. Padilla lands...). Agree or not with the why's and what for's, but this thing is real. All the initiative needs now to put it to the vote of California's citizens is a half-million or so signatures saying "Hell, yeah!" by the end of July. In Cali, a state with a government that possesses a near-Communist level of control on all things political (including "the news"), this threshold should be easy to achieve. And once on the ballot, the state legislature (which side are THEY on?) can debate it all they want, hold public hearings, etc., etc., etc., but they CANNOT change the verbiage of the initiative, nor can they prevent the initiative from going in front of the voters. On top of all of this, one can easily imagine the Mainly Swamp Media actually promoting Calexit. Why? Well, in part, such a potential crisis would be used, vigorously, to paint President Trump as the reason for all the chaos (as is already happening on 10,000 different fronts), and "by golly, he's GOT to go!" I've resided in Cali; this thing could pass. And regardless of how it goes, it'll be used as weapons-grade propaganda against our president - that's the one 100%-predictable-absolute in all of this. We're living in interesting times. (Message edited by fb1 on February 07, 2017) | ||
| Fb1 |
| ||
| Fb1 |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNxBMs8p1QE | ||
| Court |
I watched the entire thing . . . . President Trump is a LEADER . . . it seems, I am sad to say, amazing to see in The White House. He didn't sit the Sheriffs down and lecture them about gun control . . . he asked them . . . "tell me what you need?" Any questions as to why America stood up and voted for REAL change this time? | ||
| Fb1 |
Agree bigly.  | ||
| Ratbuell |
Simply outstanding. And I noted...not ONE of the Sheriffs asked for gun control, or more strict gun laws. Hmmm.... | ||
| Aesquire |
Compare Calexit hype to the REAL Governor of New York who told all those who don't agree with him to.... leave. I haven't, yet. Still paying for my house & of course still paying taxes. Besides, I don't take direction all that well. ( a common complaint in school ) and my response to threats is disproportionate. Not that I would ever advocate any illegal activity. I'm no leftist. I don't believe in burning my city. But if anything untoward should happen to the Governor, I assure you. It wasn't me. I have witnesses that will attest I was nowhere near there. And I'm on record for a peaceful solution. However, they can't blame me for casting spells involving near Earth Asteroids, and Albany is far away.  ( Just kidding on the spells, I don't know any...... that work. "Oh SMOD! Thy Day Is Upon us!" ) | ||
| Court |
They never give e up . . .
Quinnipiac . . . Quinnipiac?......oh yes. . . Quinnipiac. The folks who assured America that Hillary was a 98.1% probable winner. | ||
| Fb1 |
Source: https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/82902460546141388 8/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw | ||
| Fb1 |
Compare Calexit hype to the REAL Governor of New York who told all those who don't agree with him to.... leave. I agree with your earlier assertion:
Still, I find the overall concept of someone actually taking the steps to put secession to a statewide vote fascinating. It will be interesting to watch where this ultimately goes. | ||
| Court |
Interesting bio . . .
NO CLUE IF ANY OF THIS IS TRUE. | ||
| Fb1 |
Lifted from a comment on the Treehouse:
| ||
| Fb1 |
Source: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/02/07/60 0pm-live-stream-oral-arguments-within-ninth-circui t-court-of-appeals/ | ||
| Fb1 |
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php? pk_vid=0000010884 | ||
| Fb1 |
| ||
| Court |
Someone needs to get off their dead asses and get to work on this school thing . . . . schools hold the greatest potential for solving so many other social concerns such as gender and racial pay equality and equal opportunity. http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/AB773209-5CDE- 49F2-87CE-2B10F5837F7B/0/2015GraduationRatesWebsit e11116.pdf | ||
| Hootowl |
Will be interesting to see whether the most overturned court in the country makes another incorrect decision. | ||
| Sifo |
Will be interesting to see whether the most overturned court in the country makes another incorrect decision. It's in their DNA! (Message edited by SIFO on February 07, 2017) | ||
| Court |
Interesting perhaps . . . but damned distressing that an UNELECTED Judge, sitting in Washington State . . . is exercising domain over the President having made NO argument . . . just issuing his assertion that the President is wrong. The Judge is so far out of the scope of his authority it's scary . . . imagine if the President, who really . . under out Constitution, is pretty much the last word on Trade and Immigration, had knowledge of a threat, was protecting the country and some unwitting Judge out on the West Coast stopped that defense. Scary stuff. But . . a great first Supreme Court case to let the Dems know he's serious. They'll fact track this case into the May session. | ||
| Fb1 |
I listened to the live stream. When Noah Purcell, counsel representing WA and MN, was given his first opportunity to address the court, it took him less than ten seconds to use the word "chaos" in reference to the temporary travel ban. I'm serious as a frikkin' heart attack. And later, he used "chaos" yet again. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Judge Friedland, in particular, seemed hostile to August Flentje, Special Counsel for the United States Government. She interrupted him on MULTIPLE occasions, and seemed outright combative to me. (I checked; she's an 0bama appointee.) To the court's credit, they gave Flentje extra time to speak at the end of the hearing, to make up for the extra time that Purcell was given - each was supposed to get 30 minutes to present their case to the court; kudos to them for that. (Message edited by fb1 on February 07, 2017) | ||
| Fb1 |
Source: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/02/07/60 0pm-live-stream-oral-arguments-within-ninth-circui t-court-of-appeals/ | ||
| Strokizator |
But . . a great first Supreme Court case to let the Dems know he's serious. They'll fast track this case into the May session. Inadvisable without a full nine-member court. A 4-4 decision sends it back to the 9th circuit in SF. I don't trust even one of the liberal supreme court justices to follow the Constitution when they'd rather promote their agenda. | ||
| Fb1 |
Well, I'm not the only one:
(Message edited by fb1 on February 07, 2017) | ||
| Blake |
DOJ choked big time. Didn't answer the first question. Lame. Should have enlisted Ted Cruz. | ||
| Blake |
Today's hearing concerned only the DOJ's request for a "stay" on the district court's temporary injunction that blocked the entirety of Trumps executive order. If granted, the stay will reinstate the EO while the case makes it through the courts. I don't see how the states have any standing in this case, nor how they could possibly prevail even if they did. The district judge who took our national security into his own hands needs to be impeached. | ||
| Aesquire |
No, I don't think you should impeach judges for being rats. Dress him in a "I (heart) MILO" shirt, put a "Make America Great Again" hat, apply a ball gag & cuffs, ( probably already in his desk ) and throw him in front of a Soros paid mob. Now if there was civil discourse, then I'd say, sure, impeach & imprison. But since the professional Mob is the dominant political factor, might as well use it. | ||
| Aesquire |
The above post is in no way a call for violence of any kind. Just introducing a fine fellow to his peers. It's "common sense" judge control. I suppose a national database of leftist activist judges is called for. Of course, we'll have to ban judges with certain features. Those judges will have to be turned in or destroyed by the end of the month. | ||
| Court |
I liked Krauthammer's assessment of the DOJ legal team . . . "probably didn't graduate at the top of their class". We'll see how this goes . . . The idea that a Judge, any Judge, can instantly . . . absent judicial review of some sort . . . usurp the President on matters of Trade and Immigration (the 2 areas in which the Constitution vests the most unilateral power in the President} is a but unsettling. I hope the ruling will be promptly overturned but a neophyte first year law student may have done a better job of building a logical persuasive argument. | ||
| Torquehd |
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/7/tru mp-ready-to-approve-weapons-packages-to-saudi-a/ Is anyone else not OK with the US sending multi million dollar missiles to a state that teaches and funds radical islam? The flip side of that is that Saudi Arabia and Iran are two arrogant islamist brothers that both want to be king, and for all of Iran's saber rattling, Saudi Arabia might just feel obligated to use their newly acquired arms to level Tehran. I wonder if trump will begin to push the idea that the Islamic world needs to take care of Isis itself. |
