Bye, bye...so long...sayonara...good riddance. I don't care how big their so-called economy is. Then, build a wall around it!

California’s been described as a nation unto itself. Could it be?

“Yes California,” a pro-secession group, filed paperwork with the state attorney general in November for a proposed 2018 b****t measure to strike language in the state constitution binding California to the United States.

This month, the group announced the opening of a “cultural center” in Moscow — “the first of many planned California culture centers which will serve to build a bridge between the nation of California and the nations of the world,” read a statement on Yes California’s websit
If its b****t measure succeeds, Yes California would pursue a 2019 v**e to declare the state’s independence. At least half of the state’s v**ers would have to cast b****ts and 55 percent would have to choose independence for California to become its own nation, according to document Yes California filed with the Attorney General’s office.

Talk of California secession is nothing new. But it gained momentum after Donald Trump’s e******n. Hillary Clinton got 62 percent of California’s v**e in defeating Trump, the largest margin of victory for a p**********l candidate in the state since 1936.

The November e******n, which gave Republicans the White House and continued congressional dominance, underscored California’s political divergence from the rest of the country.

While the GOP controls most state legislatures and governorships, Republicans are a shrinking minority in the Golden State, where Democrats control the Legislature, 39 of 53 congressional seats and all statewide elected offices.

California’s Democratic leadership has vowed to fight Trump over his plans to deport undocumented immigrants and repeal Obamacare, and California’s battle against g****l w*****g is at odds with c*****e c****e skeptics in Trump’s cabinet.

In arguing for independence, Yes California contends that the state’s tax dollars subsidize the rest of America and that red-state politics marginalize California’s more progressive values. California can stand alone as a world economic power, secession advocates say.

“We believe in two fundamental t***hs,” reads a statement on Yes California’s website. “(1) California exerts a positive influence on the rest of the world, and (2) California could do more good as an independent country than it is able to do as a just a U.S. state.”

Even if a b****t measure qualifies — 585,407 signatures are needed — and a majority of Californians want to secede, an independent republic of California faces very steep odds. The question of whether states can split was answered in blood by the Civil War and in law by an 1869 U.S. Supreme Court decision that found no right to secession in the U.S. Constitution.

According to Yes California, a path to secession exists through the U.S.-ratified United Nations charter. But it’s hard to see Washington recognizing UN authority on this issue, nor is it clear how many nations would risk America’s wrath by recognizing an independent California, home to 12 percent of the U.S. population and a vital part of the nation’s economy and food supply.

Independence activists could pursue a constitutional amendment to let California secede. But that requires ratification from three-fourths of the state legislatures.

California can assert itself in ways other than secession, said Jack Pitney, a professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College.

“Federalism allows each state wide latitude in setting its own polices,” he said. “As (Gov.) Jerry Brown says, we could launch our own climate satellite (to study c*****e c****e) if the feds don’t want to.

“State officials can also push back in federal court, which is why Brown picked Xavier Becerra as attorney general,” Pitney added. Becerra, a Democratic congressman from Los Angeles, is widely expected to challenge the Trump administration in court, especially over immigration policy.

SPLIT THE STATE

Throughout California history, there’s been talk about splitting up the state and discussions of splitting from America. The state is politically divided between coastal and inland regions and the more liberal urban cores versus more conservative rural areas.

While Clinton won the statewide v**e, T***p w*n many of California’s less-populated, more inland counties, including Siskiyou and Modoc counties in the north and Kern County north of Los Angeles County.

The state of Jefferson concept, which would combine parts of rural Northern California with southern Oregon, dates back to at least the 1940s. In recent years, county lawmakers and v**ers in five Northern California counties have approved b****t measures or passed resolutions in support of Jefferson.

In 2009, then-GOP Assemblyman Bill Maze proposed the state of Coastal California consisting of 13 counties, including Los Angeles and San Francisco. Maze argued that coastal liberals politically drowned out California’s more conservative regions.

The desire to create a conservative haven led then-Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone in 2011 to propose the state of South California. Thirteen counties, including Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino, would have been part of this 51st state.

In 2013, venture capitalist Tim Draper sought to split California into six states, which he said would be more responsive to local residents and easier to govern. A measure putting the six-state concept before v**ers failed to gain enough signatures.

So, it’s doubtful California will be divided into multiple states or split from the rest of the nation — unless the San Andreas Fault gets active. Remember those “California’s shaking away” earthquake fears?

It is 28 days, 4 hours, 46 minutes, 15 seconds until the stuttering enemy-agent Muslim-excusing prancing pusillanimous embarrassing lawless defiling v**e-faking unctuous careless warmongering hypocritical sniveling whining overreaching disreputable sulking treacherous squandering odious d********g backstabbing e******n-corrupting robbery-inclined formulaic plundering indolent callous violence-agitating motherless-punk puerile intruding sickening wicked sullen wretched venal psychopathic grifting peculiar furious (and fast) gratuitously-opining lame-duck faithless spying-for-enemies shallow f**e irrational mumbling imbecile dejected slothful acrimonious demanding trivial putz juvenile delinquent odiferous malicious detestable conniving Marxism-loving peevish America-surrendering sly villainous shameful touchy unwelcome exhausting abominable indecisive moronical stomach-turning depressed meddling corrupt predatory impoverishing personal-history-concealing dangerous resentful apathetic absurd Kenyan born asshole leaves office.

David Remnick - An American Tragedy - The New Yorker
P**********l E******n 2016: An American Tragedy - The New Yorker by David Remnick e e******n of Donald Trump to the Presidency is nothing less than a tragedy for the American republic, a tragedy for the Constitution, and a triumph for the forces, at home and abroad, of nativism, authoritarianism, misogyny, and r****m. Trump’s shocking victory, his ascension to the Presidency, is a sickening event in the history of the United States and liberal democracy. On January 20, 2017, we will bid farewell to the first African-American President—a man of integrity, dignity, and generous spirit—and witness the inauguration of a con who did little to spurn endorsement by forces of xenophobia and w***e s*******y. It is impossible to react to this moment with anything less than revulsion and profound anxiety.

There are, inevitably, miseries to come: an increasingly reactionary Supreme Court; an emboldened right-wing Congress; a President whose disdain for women and minorities, civil liberties and scientific fact, to say nothing of simple decency, has been repeatedly demonstrated. Trump is vulgarity unbounded, a knowledge-free national leader who will not only set markets tumbling but will strike fear into the hearts of the vulnerable, the weak, and, above all, the many varieties of Other whom he has so deeply insulted. The African-American Other. The Hispanic Other. The female Other. The Jewish and Muslim Other. The most hopeful way to look at this grievous event—and it’s a stretch—is that this e******n and the years to follow will be a test of the strength, or the fragility, of American institutions. It will be a test of our seriousness and resolve.

Early on E******n Day, the polls held out cause for concern, but they provided sufficiently promising news for Democrats in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, and even Florida that there was every reason to think about celebrating the fulfillment of Seneca Falls, the e******n of the first woman to the White House. Potential victories in states like Georgia disappeared, little more than a week ago, with the F.B.I. director’s heedless and damaging letter to Congress about reopening his investigation and the reappearance of damaging buzzwords like “e-mails,” “Anthony Weiner,” and “fifteen-year-old girl.” But the odds were still with Hillary Clinton. All along, Trump seemed like a twisted caricature of every rotten reflex of the radical right. That he has prevailed, that he has won this e******n, is a crushing blow to the spirit; it is an event that will likely cast the country into a period of economic, political, and social uncertainty that we cannot yet imagine. That the e*****rate has, in its plurality, decided to live in Trump’s world of vanity, h**e, arrogance, unt***h, and recklessness, his disdain for democratic norms, is a fact that will lead, inevitably, to all manner of national decline and suffering. In the coming days, commentators will attempt to normalize this event. They will try to soothe their readers and viewers with thoughts about the “innate wisdom” and “essential decency” of the American people. They will downplay the virulence of the nationalism displayed, the cruel decision to elevate a man who rides in a gold-plated airliner but who has staked his claim with the populist rhetoric of blood and soil. George Orwell, the most fearless of commentators, was right to point out that public opinion is no more innately wise than humans are innately kind. People can behave foolishly, recklessly, self-destructively in the aggregate just as they can individually. Sometimes all they require is a leader of cunning, a demagogue who reads the waves of resentment and rides them to a popular victory. “The point is that the relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion,” Orwell wrote in his essay “Freedom of the Park.” “The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them.”