To Hell With California

[Fishrrman]

https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2018/03/11/to-hell-with-california-n2459678

To Hell With California
by Derek Hunter
Posted: Mar 11, 2018 12:01 AM

There’s a great scene in “Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me” where Dr. Evil is talking to the President, played by Tim Robbins, and he threatens to blow up cities with a laser from the moon unless he gets $100 billion dollars. Robbins, angry, turns to his generals and says, “I can't believe we're gonna pay that madman. I got nukes out the ying-yang. Just let me launch one, for God's sake.” One of the generals responds, “Sir. Are you suggesting that we blow up the moon?” The President then says, “Would you miss it? Would you miss it?”

Of course we would miss the moon, but if you replace “moon” with “California,” the answer, at least for me, would be different.

I don’t want to nuke California (well…ok, I don’t), but I wouldn’t mind it if it were to remove itself from the United States because, well, it’s essentially trying to.

Our most populous state now has laws on the books that make it illegal to aid federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in apprehending people in the country illegally. They are willing to punish people for helping law enforcement apprehend criminals, essentially forcing citizens to aid and abet criminals.

In defense of these laws, the Mayor of Oakland called the idea of enforcing our national sovereignty “racist,” because everything is racist now.

The Attorney General of California said, “California is in the business of public safety. We're not in the business of deportations,” which it wasn’t being asked to do.

The Governor declared enforcing federal immigration law in his state “is basically going to war against the state of California, the engine of the American economy.”

There is no doubt California has a strong economy, as their leadership likes to remind everyone, it is the 6th largest in the world. But so what? We’d survive without it.

More importantly, a lot of bad ideas and bad politicians come out of California, and the state is overrun with at least 3 million illegal aliens. Let them all go, set them free.

Imagine a country without Maxine Waters having a say vote over our laws, or Jerry Brown having no influence over your life. Sounds pretty good to me.

There is a movement in California for secession, small as it may be, we should help them. They’ll be fine, we’ll be fine, who cares?

...

You could always visit, and we’d still have trade, so you’d barely notice the difference. But you wouldn’t have these elitist snobs demanding you act a certain way, believe what they believe, and accept their demands or find yourself under their boot.

If we let California go, and we split the country along ideological lines we could fend off what seems to be looming just over the horizon, which is an ugly divorce. We simply don’t get along anymore and want completely different, irreconcilable things. Manifest Destiny was a nice idea, and we made it work for a long time, but it’s heading toward not working anymore. So maybe we let California go we’d all be a lot happier, if not better off.

I remember as a kid being told California was going to fall into the ocean, be destroyed by an earthquake. If it continues down the path is heading now, there’s a chance it will be the whole country that gets destroyed. Better to part as friends.

For full article, see URL above...

[Fishrrman]

Mr. Hunter, you are late to the party.

Many years ago (on 8/28/2003) I posted this over at TOS.
I didn't save the URL for it, but I'll reproduce that post here in its entirety:
======================
California is finished. Nothing, nor anyone, can save it now. Repeat: no one -- not McClintock, not Swarzenegger, NO ONE -- can turn California around. Whatever destiny California faces, it is rushing headlong towards that fate _today_.

The problem is not that California's course can't be changed. The problem _is_ that the steps necessary to actually _reverse_ California's progress towards disaster will be perceived as too draconian to take. Too draconian even by the terms of a Swarzenegger or McClintock. With tongue only half-in-cheek, it would take a politician of the persuasion of David Duke to actually speak the "fix" that is needed on the left coast.

It is obvious to me (and I would think also obvious to most readers of Free Republic), California has two overwhelming problems, one social, one fiscal, but both related.

The "social" problem is the inundation -- more succinctly, the INVASION -- of illegals (mostly Mexicans) from across the southern border. How many are living there now? I presume _any_ number officials come up with actually UNDERcounts the present number of illegals in the state. And how many more arrive every day?

And how many millions more will come in the future? 10 million? 20 million? Who is going to STOP them from coming? The border patrol? (hearty laugh) The answer: NO ONE. No politician in California (again, short of Mr. Duke, if they can persuade him to migrate there) is going to bluntly state that there are:
Â¥ Too many illegals in California now, and
Â¥ That no more should come, and
Â¥ That the ones already there should be "encouraged" to return to their native land(s).

Does anyone reading this seriously think that Arnold Swarzenegger will say as much?
Does anyone reading this seriously think that Tom McClintock will say as much?

So I think that it's a certainty to state that the illegal invasion will continue into the foreseeable future.

With the continuing flood of illegals, the second problem is economic. To wit: the hordes of illegals must be subsidized by the state, and, it follows, by the productive citizens of the state -- i.e., the taxpayers.

But there are so many [largely illegal] "tax-consumers" now (with their numbers growing daily) that there isn't enough revenue from the tax-producers to pay for them. The state is going broke at breakneck speed. Many conservative Californians perceive this, and are packing up and moving out. That will exacerbate the problems, like some kind of "Laffer curve" gone insane. As the tax-consuming population zooms upward, the tax-producers will escape across the borders. And the state's deficit will degenerate into something resembling an economic black hole.

They _had_ a chance to put some brakes on it with Proposition 187. But we all know what happened to that.

Not being familiar with the particulars of the court decision that declared 187 unconstitutional -- and whether that court decision could still be appealed to a higher forum (read: U.S. Supreme Court), would Tom McClintock be willing to push for a _new_ ballot initiative to deny benefits to illegals? And -- after it is again declared unconstitutional at the Circuit Court level, will he keep pushing? Would a Governor Ah-nuld do the same?

I doubt it. Whatever steps a Republican governor might take, he is going to be thwarted by the overwhelming Democratic majority at every step. The more drastic the proposals a McClintock or Swarzenegger might make (and, as explained above, only drastic measures can have a Chinaman's chance of turning the Titanic of California around), the greater resistance he will face from the legislature.

Ultimately, California will likely become the first state in history that goes bankrupt. $38 BILLION in debt NOW, with no relief in sight. How are they going to get out of this? Will Congress force the other 49 states to pay for it? Answer: unknown at this time. This could become an issue in the 2004 presidential election - remember that you read this prediction here first.

Perhaps, for the _rest of us_ (meaning everyone in the other 49 states), the election of Bustamente might be the preferable alternative. For, if anything, Bustamente (with his MECHA background) will take pro-active steps to accelerate the conversion of California into a quasi-Mexican state, finishing off any hope that the bulk of the state will remain something resembling the rest of the United States.

In other threads, I've stated several times that conservatives in the "other 49" should ask themselves the "Ann Landers question" regarding California: would we be better off with it, or withOUT it?

I realize there is still a conservative base within California, but in the future, they will find themselves marginalized in the same way that whites are being demonized in South Africa. The only recourse for survival will become physical escape.

And as California inches ever closer to the precipice, perhaps the best course for the rest of America will be to let it fall away. For all the talk of the legendary earthquake that would cause the state to slide into the Pacific, ultimately, it will be an "earthquake" of social/economic upheaval that splits the erstwhile golden state from the rest of the nation.
======================
The above was me speaking 15 years ago.
Me speaking today:
Folks... who saw this coming first?
And who was the first to pose the "Ann Landers question" regarding California?

[INVAR]

Trump should do what all sovereign states do when their people want that which the Beast at Mordor on the Potomac says they may not do, have or hold as law.

They should simply withhold all federal funds for everything into that state until they comply with federal immigration and other laws they have decided they want no part of.

That always works when The People vote to do things like term limits, end abortion, stop welfare payments to illegals and such.

And if it does not work then California is simply on it's next step towards becoming annexed by Mexico.

[DB]

If California wants to go its own way, they should be required to pay their share of the federal debt that they had a large part in creating. That is at least 2 trillion dollars. And why should the federal government pay any social security to people who are no longer citizens of the United States?

[truth_seeker]

Meanwhile in Realityville, Orange County, hundreds of homeless have been removed from the Santa Ana River trail.

They will be provided free transport to Oakland.

Some make excuses, claiming the homeless are mentally ill. But more and more realize any mental illness is mostly self-inflicted, by drugs.

The 36 year old that murdered the women in Yountville CA was on drugs. The 39 year old vet that shot a cop in Pomona CAyesterday, was on drugs.

[INVAR]

If California wants to go its own way, they should be required to pay their share of the federal debt that they had a large part in creating. That is at least 2 trillion dollars.

That will never happen. 

We should just cut them loose and let Mexico have them, because that is inevitable at this point.

Why should the rest of us PAY to have Mexico Reconquinista a state that WANTS to be Mexico?

[DB]

That will never happen. 

We should just cut them loose and let Mexico have them, because that is inevitable at this point.

Why should the rest of us PAY to have Mexico Reconquinista a state that WANTS to be Mexico?

Or they just assume the 2+ trillion dollar share of their debt so it is off the Federal books. I can easily live with that.