We’re pleased to host another guest contribution from commenter DN Poolside. Be sure to give him the business in the combox.
There’s a land that was once proud and rich. It’s still rich, but only on the margins. This land has vast natural resources, but it has flirted with the frontier border between socialism and communism. This land is a basket case.
This land is actually lots of different lands. It’s California today, it’s Brazil in fits and starts, and it’s Venezuela tomorrow. The delusion of its people is such that an increasing number of them are enticed by the secessionist movement captured by the community college level marketing slogan “YesCalifornia.” One word; not even a lousy Jeb!esque exclamation point.
The decisions of maniacs are often left in the hands of the sane. We’re not quite at that point, but since we’re all so uplifted from our recent winning, it might help our mental balance to contemplate some of the difficult decisions ahead for us if YesCalifornia gets rebranded and Spanglished to SiCalifornia! and really starts picking up momentum.
First, some of the particulars. The initiative is now on track to be on the 2018 ballot. There are 7,000 volunteers working to get 585,407 signatures by July 25, 2017. If (when) they do that, they’ll be on the ballot. The ballot question will be to determine if there should be a special election in 2019, the purpose of which would be to put the wheels in motion to secede. The good news here in the languid pace is that nothing can likely be completed before 2020, and we’ll all be able to enjoy the prospect of California having another temper tantrum as a state, not an independent country, when president Trump is re-elected.
Among the vanguard of this movement is one Marcus Ruiz Evans. Mr. Ruiz-Evans recently opined that “No one is going to invade, no one is going to stop trading – there is too much money invested here, too many deals going on. The world would not let the California economy be disrupted.” There are so many fun ways to dissect that.
First off, Breitbart reported that 9,000 companies left California from 2008 to 2015. How many businesses with a choice will want to stay to see the confiscatory value transference that will escalate as California embraces economic policies unhinged from the Commerce Clause? What foreign businesses will want any assets in jeopardy there without the transparency and predictability of the US government? Colorado and Washington better have infrastructure plans at the ready for the influx.
Next off, what is “the world” going to do about anything? Exploring just one hypothetical, what the hell will China do, let alone Mexico or Canada, if the rump US decided to blockade Los Angeles harbor and San Francisco bay, and generally halt trade? The world needs just about nothing of what California produces. Movies? They’ll be glad to make their own and stop getting our filth. Wine? Napa Valley, meet your grandad, Monsieur Bordeaux, your nephew Senor Medoza, and your redneck cousin in Australia, the Barossa Valley. And those are just the reds. Tech sector? The 1% who innovate and invest will be just as happy to do so anywhere in the world that won’t tax them at 65% and force them to live behind barbed wire. So they’re left with agriculture. I’d pay a lot more for asparagus from Michigan to screw them over if they manage to break away.
Lastly, if too much money is invested there, in what denomination is it invested? Even the eye of Soros, sympathetic as I’m sure he is to the cause, won’t be happy about either a California rupee or a devalued greenback.
Continuing on, Ruiz-Evans pointed the finger of stupid to himself and the new California Attorney General when he said, “A lot of people said this was unconstitutional. If it’s unconstitutional, how come the AG approved it?” Looking into the surely eminent legal mind of the California AG, I found myself getting reacquainted with the same political succubus who had entered our consciousness for about 9 seconds last year, when he was being simultaneously bandied about as a possible VP candidate, and teased for being Hillary’s water boy; Xavier Becerra. This was in the time before Tim Kaine and his eyebrows invaded our children’s nightmares. Anyway, I’m not qualified to evaluate Becerra’s legal opinion, and learned all I needed to when I saw a picture of his house that was on the GOP website here. The point of the GOP article was that Becerra had spent $1.4M for a house in Maryland while representing California in Congress. I didn’t care so much about that, as I was just amused that the Becerra family had not one, but two of the obligatory Democrat Priuses (Priae?)in the driveway. A corresponding picture of a low T man and a high T wife pulling out each morning to their government jobs was easy to imagine.
Even the left is dubious of this venture. Conor Friedersdorf will go to his grave being a goodwhite, but he sees things and says things that his fellow SJWs either don’t want to see, or don’t want to say. So I really liked his “And did I mention Colorado River water?” observation that concluded his lengthy article on why Calexit would be a bad idea. I’m sure Nevada and Colorado and Wyoming would gladly scrap the agreement that since 1922 has been giving California an outsized proportion of the river’s water.
NY Magazine was also honest enough to say “The state is drifting even further away from the rest of the country in cultural attitudes and public policies.” It’s mildly interesting and quite out of character that they didn’t blame the country for drifting from California.
California has been imposing its immigration beliefs on the rest of the country since 1999, when Gray Davis refused to fight a judicial stay of the law (sound familiar?). Since the immigration restriction ballot initiative was passed in 1994, California has traveled so far as to have a pending law that would prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from responding to requests from federal immigration authorities. In 23 short years we went from the people saying “No More!” to the government saying “No Limits!”
The rest of the country holds the whip hand here. It is for us to determine what is best for us. As much as I’d like to excise the gangrenous foot, it would only ensure that the rot spread. The tide of leftist insanity needs to be reversed, not ignored. The world is full of once prosperous places.
The winning mentality has to be that we are better off with California, but without the current Californians. We have to fight to retrieve the land and our victimized California brethren. “Screw ‘em. Good riddance!” is not a viable option, because once they leave, goodbye Hawaii, New York, and eventually others. Besides, it’s ours, dammit. The solutions are difficult not because we don’t know what they are, but because they will be fought with the same tenacity as any hot war.
Anyone reading here knows the path. Winning starts with enforcing current immigration law, and continues on with implementing mandatory eVerify, elimination of birth citizenship and other immigration actions. Simultaneously, eliminate all welfare for non-citizens. No more food stamps, no more Social Security disability, no more Medicaid. Then stamp out the underground economy of California with the same vigor Elliot Ness pursued Al Capone. Every taqueria , every neighborhood grocery store, hell any business painted yellow in California needs a cash-intensive business audit from the IRS. Make it more miserable to be here than it is to be in Mexico. Lastly, if allies are needed, look no further than the 13% Asian population. A large chunk of them had their first American experience at a university, with all of the attendant liberal brain washing, so they go along to get along with what they think is the current dominant culture. But in the end, with a little courting, their innate order-loving “Hey, Hey, This is Library!” selves will choose our side if we make it a situation that requires choosing.
Don’t give up California. Take it back.